BABU ALIAS GOVINDOSS KRISHNADOSS Vs. GOKULDOSS GOVERDHANDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case relates to property valued at several lakhs, and the points that have been raised have been argued very fully. In the following genealogical table, which set forth the relationship of the parties, are also noted certain important dates.

(2.) The principal question to be decided is are the rights of the parties to be determined on the basis of a contract of partnership or on the footing that they are co-parceners of a joint Hindu family? Ramdas Ghanshamdas was carrying on trade in yarn and died in 1879. After his death, his sons continued the family trade and lived as members of a joint Hindu family. Disputes arose among them and they executed muchilikas (submissions) in favour of an arbitrator who, on 27 September, 1890, delivered his award in writing, effecting a partition of the family properties. The plaintiff alleges that Muralidas and Govardhandas, as a result of the partition, became the owners of the family business, and continued thereafter to trade jointly and as partners. In course of time, ho goes on to allege, Krishnadas and Gokuldas, were admitted into the partnership, Muralidas died in 1907 and Krishnadas in 1908 and the partnership was afterwards continued by the surviving partners, Govardhandas and his sons. The former died in 1909 and the trade was continued by his sons, Gokuldas and Dwarkadas. The plaintiff claims that, as the son of Krishnadas, he is entitled to have an account taken of the affairs of the partnership, which, he contends, became dissolved on the latter's death in 1908. As the above table shows, the principal parties to the contest were the plaintiff, the 1st, 2nd and the 3 defendants. Subsequent to the suit, the 2nd defendant died and the 1 defendant became an insolvent and his estate is now represented by the Official Assignee, Madras, who has been brought on the record as the 6 defendant.

(3.) The defence of the Official Assignee is that the partition of (sic) did not affect the status of Muralidas and Govardhan, that it was a partial partition in regard to parties and that its effect was to sever the remaining three brothers alone from the family. He thus contends that Muralidas and Govardhandas continued to remain, as before, members of a Hindu co- parcenary. Should, however, the Court hold that there was a partition between them inter se, he maintains in the alternative, that immediately or sometime thereafter there was a reunion between them, which involves in law (so he contends) a restoration of the joint family status. Gokuldas, the Official Assignee alleges, dealt with the property not as the surviving partner but in his capacity as the managing member of the undivided joint family and that the plated if is bound by the acts of the said manager. The plaintiff answers, not only that there was no re- union in fact between Muralidas and Govardhandas, but that, in law there could not have been a valid re-union. He also contends that re-union does not in law restore the original joint family status, but that it merely gives rise to a rule of preferential succession. The importance of this contention to the plaintiff is obvious. If it is accepted as sound, it follows that whether there has been re union or not, the right which he claims in this suit remains unaffected. If re- union does not lead to a restoration of the coparcenary, with its various incidents, including the power of the manager to bind the other members by his acts, it matters little to the plaintiff on the facts of this case whether it is held that there was or was not a valid re-union. The alienations of Gokuldas are sought to be made binding on the plaintiff on the supposed ground, that they are the acts of a managing member and if this ground does not exist, the plaintiff's liability disappears along with it.