LAWS(PVC)-1927-7-122

JOHURMULL BHUTRA Vs. KEDARNATH BHUTRA

Decided On July 05, 1927
JOHURMULL BHUTRA Appellant
V/S
KEDARNATH BHUTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application brought on the 22nd. February 1927 to set aside a consent decree passed : in a partition suit on the 24 January 1927. The suit was brought by the infant plaintiff Kedarnath Bhutra by his mother as next friend. The defendant Johurmull Bhutra is the brother of the plaintiff's deceased father Hira, Lal, and the general character of this suit was that the plaintiff claimed that since the death of his father Hira Lal and indeed before, the defendant had been is occupation and enjoyment of properties which had been joint between the two brothers. It would seem to be accurate that before Hira Lal's death the brothers had separated and that there bad been no actual division of the ijmali property.

(2.) It may be mentioned that in the year 1900 Hira Lal and the defendant had executed a deed of trust whereby a certain property at Lilooah had been conveyed to the trustees on behalf of a certain deity. So far as can be ascertained the trustees at the relevant time were the defendant, the plaintiff's mother and a third person.

(3.) The suit having been brought in May 1925 a written statement was put in by the defendant, and in that written statement it is necessary to notice that the defendant set up the debuttar deed. He set up that there was an agreement to take lease of certain premises, No. 7, Bysack Lane, which premises should be included in the joint property. The defendant admitted also that, as the senior male member of the family, he had been realizing rents of the joint; estate. He stated that he had always been ready and willing to render proper accounts and to make over the plaintiff's share to the plaintiff on getting proper discharge. Among other matters the defendant stated that he had never objected to an amicable partition of the joint estate, that the present suit was unnecessary and that he left it to the judgment of the Court as to whether a separation was to the benefit of the infant plaintiff or not.