1989 (2) TMI 414 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Partition of family properties.
2. Alleged partition in the family in 1914.
3. Admission of partition in earlier litigation.
4. Evidence supporting joint family status.
5. Self-acquired properties and their exclusion from partition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Partition of Family Properties:
The appellant filed a suit for partition of properties, which was initially decreed by the trial court. However, the High Court reversed this decision and dismissed the suit. The appellant claimed joint family status till 1946 and sought a share in properties purchased by his deceased brother Ganpatrao, who was the 'Karta' of the family. The appellant also challenged certain alienations by Ganpatrao.

2. Alleged Partition in the Family in 1914:
The main defense was based on an alleged partition in 1914. In a previous suit (Special Suit No. 36 of 1947), the present defendants claimed that Shankarrao had been adopted by a stranger in 1907 and had resided in Gwalior. The trial court in that suit held that Shankarrao had been adopted and thus left the family. However, the High Court reversed this finding but dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, noting that it did not include all joint family properties and lacked Ganpatrao's consent for partition.

3. Admission of Partition in Earlier Litigation:
In the present suit, the High Court relied on Shankarrao's written statement in the 1947 suit, where he admitted to a partition in 1914. The High Court concluded that there was no binding finding on the alleged partition in the earlier litigation. The High Court held that the defense's claim of a 1914 partition was correct, reversing the trial court's decree.

4. Evidence Supporting Joint Family Status:
The appellant contended that the High Court erred in relying solely on the written statement from the earlier suit and failed to consider other evidence. The High Court found that Shankarrao's admission of the 1914 partition was not contradicted by his other statements. The High Court also noted that the respondents did not plead jointness in the earlier suit, thus not neutralizing Shankarrao's admission.

5. Self-Acquired Properties and Their Exclusion from Partition:
The High Court held that the presumption of jointness under Hindu Mitakshara law was rebutted by Shankarrao's admission of the 1914 partition. The High Court also examined other evidence, including money order receipts and letters, but found them insufficient to prove jointness. The High Court concluded that properties purchased by the two branches were self-acquired and not subject to partition. The High Court's dismissal of the suit was upheld, and the appellant's challenge to the transfers by the defendants failed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs. The appellant's interest in self-acquired properties was protected by the High Court's observations, and there was no merit in the appellant's argument against the dismissal of the entire suit.