PANDIT SURAJ NARAIN Vs. PANDIT RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In April 1867 Bakhshi Bishnu Narain died, leaving four sons, whose names in order of birth are: Raj Narain, Ram Narain, Bakht Narain and Suraj Narain. The family was a Hindu joint family, governed by the Mitakshara law and possessing ancestral property. Accordingly, upon his father s death the eldest son, Raj Narain, became Karta and so continued until his death in August 1890. His brother, Ram Narain, then succeeded and acted as Karta until his death in October 1900. Disputes then arose between Bakht Narain and Suraj Narain as to Bakht Narain s claim to be registered as Karta and as to their rights and the rights of their respective sons in the joint family properties. Some arrangement and reconciliation of this family quarrel, though one neither firm nor durable, seems to have been effected, but disputes broke out again with regard to the property and four suits were instituted on the 3rd November, 1903, by Bakht Narain and a fifth suit in 1905 by Suraj Narain who claimed a half share in the entire joint estate. These appeals are consolidated appeals in those suits, the question for determination being whether certain very numerous properties acquired since the death of Bakhshi Bishnu Narain are joint property. The appellants, who are certain members of the joint family, contend that they are. The respondent, who is the son-in law of Ram Narain, says that they are not. The Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the present appellants. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh reversed that decision. Hence these appeals.

(2.) Raj Narain had no son. Ram Narain also had no son, but had one daughter, to whom her father was much attached. She married Ratan Lal, the respondent, who contends that the disputed properties were either bought with his money or were given him by Ram Narain and for those reasons are his own, or, at any rate, are not joint property.

(3.) The material facts that led up to this dispute are these :- From about the year 1864 to the year 1880, or, perhaps later, Raj Narain practised as a pleader at Lucknow. In the year 1869 Ram Narain, who was then twenty-three years old, left Lucknow for Hardoi and from that year onwards practised as a pleader at Hardoi. He was successful and later in life became a rich man. Before 1890, while Raj Narain was Karta and after 1890, when Ram Narain was Karta, properties were acquired at Hardoi. They were taken in various names -that of Raj Narain, that of Ram Narain, that of Ratan Lal, those of Ratan Lal and of his son Madan Mohan Lal and of other persons. The books of account of the family property were kept at Lucknow, where Raj Narain lived; but Ram Narain, who was at Hardoi, acted as manager of the properties at Hardoi, as well before as after 1890. He bought properties at Hardoi, receiving, at any rate in one instance which is proved (that of the village Mahora), money from Lucknow to make the purchase and he received income and made disbursements in respect of joint family property at Hardoi. But the purchases at Hardoi were made to a large extent not with joint family monies, but with fees earned by Ram Narain in his practice as a pleader and it is with these properties that these appeals are concerned. Under these circumstances their Lordships have taken as the first question to be answered in order to adjust the rights between the parties this question :- Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that Ram Narain so blended his own property with the joint property as to make the whole joint property.