Case: Jatti Vs Banwari Lal. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Judges | Buckmaster, Carson, Dunedin, Salvesen and John Edge, JJ. |
| Issue | Hindu law |
| Citation | 1923 (25) BomLR 1256 |
| Judgement Date | May 15, 1923 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Dunedin, J.
-
In 1876 four brothers, Ishar Das, Harbhagwan, Rup Chand and Daya Ram, lived as a joint Hindu family and carried on a family business. In that year a deed was executed by which the assets of the family were described and divided, and Ishar Das was finally paid out. Thereafter the business was carried on, but the profits were carried to separate accounts of the three remaining brothers in equal shares.
-
In 1905 Rup Chand died, leaving a widow who is the appellant. In 1914, the widow raised this suit against the remaining brother and the sons of the other who had pre-deceased, claiming accounts and payment of one-third of the partnership assets.
-
The defence put up was two-fold. It was alleged that though in 1876 Ishar Das separated from this joint family, the other brothers remained joint: that in consequence on the death of Rup Chand, the husband of the plaintiff", she had only the right of maintenance as a Hindu widow, which maintenance she had duly received. Consequently, it was said that assuming that there was a complete separation, the suit was time-barred under Article 106 of the first Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act. The statement of the plaintiff as to what happened at her husband's death was not expressed with precision, but might be read as an averment that on her husband's death she was admitted to be a partner, her share being the same as that of her deceased husband. The issues as originally framed were only three in number, one of which, being as to the plaint being adequately stamped, may be disregarded. The remaining two were (1) On the separation of Ishar Das did not the remaining male members of the family become separate? (2) Did they convert the joint family business into a partnership? The case went to trial and no evidence was produced by the plaintiff, except the account books of the firm, which showed that after Ishar Das separated the profits of the business were carried to separate shares in the names of the three brothers, and this continued after Rup Chand's death. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge found first, that the deed executed at the separation of Ishar Das showed separation of the whole brothers; that re-union had not been proved and that the joint family came to an end. But finding in the pleading a clear plea to the effect that the suit was time-barred, he added an issue to that effect and decided it in favour of the defendants.
-
The plaintiff appealed, and on...
To continue reading
Request your trial