RADHE KISHANLAL Vs. HARKISANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MITCHELL , A.J.C. 1. The parties to this suit are shown in the genealogical tree below: Harkisanlal=Krishna Bai | Radhekisanlal | Vishnu Pershad

(2.) HARKISANLAL sued his son Radhekisanlal for partition of the ancestral family property and joined as defendants his own wife, Krishna Bai, and his grandson, Vishnu Pershad. The claim was for partition of the ancestral property including moveables. The lower Court passed a preliminary decree in which it declared that Harkisanlal and Krishna Bai were each entitled to a one-third share, and Radhekisanlal and Vishnu to a one-sixth share each, and it directed that only the immovable property of the family should be divided. The son Radhekisanlal now appeals on various grounds which may be considered separately.

(3.) THE second ground of appeal relating to the guardianship of the minor Vishnu Pershad has been abandoned. The third and fourth grounds of appeal raise the question of the right of Krishna Bai to a share in the family property. The lower Court has allowed her a full one-third share, thereby putting her in the same position with her husband and her son. The son contends that his mother is not entitled to a share of her own but should look for her maintenance to the share allotted to her husband, and that the property should be divided half and half between himself and his father.