SUKHDEO Vs. BASDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit for: (1) partition of the plaintiffs moiety share in the property given at the foot of the plaint; (2) a declaration of the plaintiffs title to a moiety's hare respecting the property not capable of partition by the Civil Court; and (3) rendition of accounts of the profits of the joint family property and business and a decree for a moiety share in the same.

(2.) The properties in dispute in the suit were immovable properties including zamindari, tenancy holdings and house property. We are not concerned in the present appeal with the movables and other properties in dispute in the suit. One Shankar Tcwari died leaving two sons Sukhdeo and Basdeo. Basdeo and his sons were the plaintiffs in the suit and Sukhdeo and his descendants were the principal defendants to the suit. The plaintiffs case was that Basdeo and Sukhdeo and their descendants continued to live as members of a joint Hindu family till the date of the suit and that Sukhdeo was the manager of the family. The plaintiffs alleged that all the properties detailed at the foot of the plaint; were joint family properties and the share of the plaintiffs in the same was to the extent of half. They charged Sukhdeo with misappropriation of the profits and assets of the joint family and maintained that he was liable to account with respect to the family assets.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit mainly on the allegation that separation between the plaintiffs and the defendants took place about 10 years before the date of the suit and that after separation Basdeo and Sukhdeo acquired properties separately, and the allegation of the plaintiffs that all the properties mentioned in the plaint were joint family properties was untrue. They denied the allegation of the plaintiffs that Sukhdeo was the manager of the alleged joint family and maintained that after the death of Shankair Tewari Basdeo plaintiff continued to be the manager of the family till the partition took place between the branches of Basdeo and Sukhdeo. They repudiated the charge of misapprogriation levelled by the plaintiffs against Sukhdeo and contended that, even if the family be found to be joint and Sukhdeo be held to be the manager, he is not legally liable to be called upon to render accounts. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs claim for partition of the fixed rate holdings, occupancy holdings, etc., was not cognizable by the Civil Court and most of the argument addressed in this appeal has centred round this plea.