S SHAUKAT ALI Vs. MOHAMMAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2012 passed in Partition Appeal No.15 of 2006 by the District Judge, II, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby the learned District Judge, II, Palamau at Daltonganj dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge No. III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Partition Suit No.10 of 1989. It is the further case of the plaintiff that from the year 1977 he has been in service at Ningha Colliery in the district of Burdwan in the State of West Bengal. Both of his brothers (i.e. defendant Nos.1 and 2) used to reside with his father owing to their unemployed condition and they used to work under the father of the plaintiff for proper management of his flourishing business of hide and bone and out of the business of his father, they have also acquired certain property mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint in their name for the benefit of whole family. In this way being the head and karta of the family, the father and later on the defendant Nos.1 and 2 used to acquire and develop the immovable properties and holdings which are also the suit property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after the death of his father in the year 1973, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 without break began to manage and carry on the trade of his father. They did not show the accounts to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed Partition Suit No.53 of 1983 but the same was dismissed and the plaintiff could not succeed to restore the said suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit.

(3.) The contesting defendants besides the usual defence, pleaded that the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had never been flourishing business of hide and bone and when the defendants acquired the property, the condition of his father was not in such a position that he could purchase the immovable property but the defendants themselves in their own efforts and earnings have purchased the land and holdings under the dispute. They claim that the entire suit property are their selfacquired property and the documents of the sale deeds of the property and the mutation of the property is in their name and they are also paying the rent and have receipts therefor.