PHULMATI DEVI Vs. JIWASIA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff in the original suit. She alongwith defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the common ancestor, Buddhu Dusadh. The Respondent no. 5 is the son of the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit before the court below for partition of the properties described in Scheduled -'A' and Schedule -'B' of the plaint claiming one -fourth share in the same besides mesne profits of the suit properties. The Suit, registered as Partition Suit No. 37 of 1993 in the court of the Sub -Judge, Ranchi was dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 25.09.1996. The instant appeal by the plaintiff has been filed against the aforesaid impugned judgment and its corresponding decree.

(2.) ON the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned court below had framed the following issues:

(3.) ON the relevant issue nos. 3 to 6, which were taken jointly for determination, the trial court had recorded its finding that the plaintiff has not established that there was joint family nucleus, which could be derived from the Schedule -'A' properties. The trial court has observed that the plaintiff neither averred in her plaint nor adduced any evidence to indicate the amount of income, if any, derived from the Schedule -'A' properties and the savings, which could be considered as surplus from such income. The trial court had proceeded to record its further finding that even though there was no partition of the joint family properties amongst the heirs of the common ancestor in respect of the Schedule -'A' properties but there was no joint family nucleus, which could support the plaintiffs claim that the properties mentioned in Schedule -'B' of the plaint could be acquired from the income derived from the Schedule -' A' properties. The trial court had further recorded its finding that the Gas Agency business mentioned in Item No. 1 of Schedule -'B' was exclusively acquired by the defendant no. 3 and the other properties mentioned in various items of Schedule -'B' were also acquired by the defendant no. 3, some of which were acquired together with the defendant no. 5 and that none of the properties mentioned in Schedule -'B' could be considered as joint family properties nor could the plaintiff claim any share in the same.