RAI RAGUNATH BALI Vs. RAI MAHARAJ BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case Rai Baghu Nath Bali sued Bat Maharaj Bali for the purpose of recovering the half of a talook in Oudh, together with other property which is specified in the plaint, of various descriptions, some real property, some personal property, and some "Muafi villages." The relationship of the parties is sufficiently stated in a short pedigree to be found at the beginning of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. It appears that Sital Parshad had three sons, Suraj Bali, Anand Bali, and Partab Bali. Anand Bali died without issue. Partab Bali had two sons, Sheoraj and the Plaintiff, Sheoraj having died some years before the suit was instituted. The other son of Sital, Suraj Bali, had a son, Abhram Bali, who died in 1880, leaving the Defendant his heir and successor.

(2.) THE talook in question is one which for a very considerable time has descended to the eldest son, who has taken the whole of it, and has given maintenance to other members of the family. In 1858 a summary settlement of this talook was made with Abhram Bali, the father of the Defendant, and in 1860 Abhram received a sanad in pursuance of that summary settlement, whereby the talook was granted to him and to his heirs on the principle of primogeniture, and his name was subsequently inserted in the first and second list of talookdars in the Oudh Estates Act of 1869. This being so, no question has been raised on the part of the Appellant as to the right to the talook, except on the suggestion of a trust--the proof of which has entirely failed.

(3.) WE have only, therefore, to deal with accumulations which have been made by the Plaintiff or his father, or his ancestors. With respect to them it is admitted that any savings made from the proceeds of the talook since the summary settlement of 1858 would belong to the Defendant. The question, therefore, is still further reduced to savings and investments which have been made at an earlier time, or from proceeds other than those of the talook. As to them the Plaintiff contends that the family being joint, he is entitled to his share. A very able and ingenious argument has been addressed to their Lordships on the part of Mr. Mayne for the purpose of shewing that the family was joint. The Subordinate Judge has found that they were not joint; but in the view which their Lordships take of the case it is not necessary to decide this question.