9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Joint Acquisition of Property 2. Joint Family Property under Mitakshara Law 3. Partnership Business 4. Limitation Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Joint Acquisition of Property: The plaintiff claimed that the property in question was jointly acquired by him and the first defendant through a contract business they carried on together. The plaintiff alleged that they were undivided brothers and the property was jointly acquired, estimated at Rs. 60,000. The first defendant denied any joint acquisition or joint contract business, asserting that the property was not jointly acquired. 2. Joint Family Property under Mitakshara Law: The plaintiff argued that the property formed the joint family property of himself and the first defendant, acquired by their joint labour and exertions, and thus liable to partition. The court examined the principles of Hindu Law, particularly the Mitakshara doctrine, which requires an undivided family as a corporate body and possession of property by such a body. It was noted that the plaintiff and the first defendant were only two out of five brothers, and the family had some joint ancestral property. The court concluded that the plaintiff and the first defendant did not form an undivided family owning joint family property as a corporate body. 3. Partnership Business: The plaintiff alternatively argued that even if the property could not be regarded as joint family property, he was entitled to an equal share in the profits of the contract business as a partner with the first defendant. The court considered whether a partnership could be implied based on the plaintiff's regular contribution to the business. The court found that the plaintiff did regularly contribute his labour and attention to the contract business from 1888 to 1893. However, the plaintiff's conduct and certain evidence suggested that he did not work with an understanding of sharing profits but rather expected to be rewarded for his trouble. The court concluded that there was no partnership agreement, express or implied, between the plaintiff and the first defendant. 4. Limitation: The first defendant raised the plea of limitation, arguing that if the suit was based on an alleged partnership, it was barred by limitation. The court noted that the partnership, if any, terminated around the end of 1893 or beginning of 1894. Since the suit was instituted in 1900, it was clearly barred by the law of limitation. The court also addressed the argument that the three-year period of limitation prescribed by Article 106 of the Indian Limitation Act would be inapplicable to properties purchased from the profits of the partnership. It was held that, in the absence of any agreement or proof that the properties were withdrawn from the partnership and converted into co-owned properties, they were prima facie partnership properties and the suit was barred by limitation. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the plaintiff's suit failed on both grounds: the property was not joint family property under Mitakshara law, and the claim based on partnership was barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
