1961 (9) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment of the Revenue Court operates as res judicata.
2. Whether there was a partition in the larger family.
3. Whether there was a reunion between Kashi Ram, Raghubar Dayal, and Bhagwan Dayal.
4. Whether properties jointly acquired by some members of a joint Hindu family can be considered joint family properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Res Judicata:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the judgment of the Revenue Court in Suit No. 15 of 1939 operates as res judicata in the present suit concerning the plaintiff's right to succeed to the share of Raghubar Dayal. The Court noted that the Revenue Court had exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of suits, including those for the settlement of accounts and profits among co-sharers. However, the present suit, which sought a declaration of title and an injunction, did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Consequently, the decision of the Revenue Court did not operate as res judicata because the Revenue Court was not competent to try the present suit. Thus, Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs res judicata, was not applicable.

2. Partition in the Larger Family:
The Supreme Court examined whether there was a partition in the larger family of Lachhman Prasad. The Court considered the general principle that every Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless proven otherwise. It was noted that Kashi Ram had left the ancestral home long ago, started a business with his savings, and there was no evidence of him receiving income from the ancestral property. The Court also observed that Kashi Ram's will and other documents did not indicate that he considered himself a member of a joint Hindu family. The consistent conduct of the family members for about 50 years suggested that there was a partition in the larger family. Therefore, the Court accepted the finding that there was a partition in the larger family.

3. Reunion:
The Court addressed whether there was a reunion between Kashi Ram, Raghubar Dayal, and Bhagwan Dayal. It was emphasized that a reunion must be strictly proven and requires an agreement to reunite in estate and interest. The evidence, including Kashi Ram's will and adoption deed, indicated that Kashi Ram treated the properties as his self-acquisitions. The Court found that the conduct of the parties did not support the existence of a reunion. The plaintiff's case of reunion was also presented as an alternative and lacked clarity. The Court concluded that there was no reunion between Kashi Ram, Raghubar Dayal, and Bhagwan Dayal.

4. Joint Family Properties:
The Supreme Court examined whether properties jointly acquired by some members of a joint Hindu family could be considered joint family properties. The Court referred to the principle that a joint Hindu family or its branches can acquire and hold property as a corporate unit. However, two or more members of different branches or even the same branch cannot form a subordinate joint Hindu family and acquire property with the incidents of joint family property. The Court cited various precedents supporting this principle. It was concluded that the properties jointly acquired by Kashi Ram and his nephews could not be considered joint family properties. They were co-sharers or co-tenants, and their properties passed by inheritance, not by survivorship.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the judgment of the Revenue Court did not operate as res judicata, there was a partition in the larger family, there was no reunion between the parties, and the properties jointly acquired by Kashi Ram and his nephews were not joint family properties. The appeal was dismissed with costs.