1903 (4) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Plaintiff's allegation of title by survivorship and possession.
2. Whether the husbands of the judgment debtor defendants were separate from the plaintiff at the time of their respective deaths.
3. The binding nature of the ikrarnama of June 21, 1883, on the minors.
4. The possibility of the co-parceners reuniting after the separation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Plaintiff's Allegation of Title by Survivorship and Possession:
The plaintiff, Ram Narain, contended that the family was joint and no separation had taken place, thereby claiming sole entitlement to the property by survivorship. The Subordinate Judge initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the ikrarnama of June 21, 1883, merely defined and fixed the shares in case of actual partition and separation, but did not effectuate a separation. This decision was upheld by the High Court, which noted that although separate shares were allotted, the intention was for the family, excluding Mahabir Pershad, to remain joint.

2. Whether the Husbands of the Judgment Debtor Defendants Were Separate from the Plaintiff at the Time of Their Respective Deaths:
The High Court examined the ikrarnama and concluded that the document indicated a separation in estate and interest among the family members, converting them from joint holders into tenants in common. The High Court's judgment emphasized that the separation in estate was legally binding, regardless of whether the family continued to live together or enjoy the property in common. The Privy Council agreed with this interpretation, stating that the ikrarnama clearly allotted defined shares, thus effecting a separation in estate and interest.

3. The Binding Nature of the Ikrarnama of June 21, 1883, on the Minors:
The Privy Council examined whether the ikrarnama was binding on the minors, Ram Narain and Thakoor Pershad, at the time of its execution. It was noted that a valid agreement for partition could be made during the minority of co-parceners, provided it was not unfair or prejudicial to their interests. The evidence indicated that the mothers of the minors acted independently and the partition was not unfair. Therefore, the ikrarnama was considered binding on the minors, and no suit had been brought to impeach it.

4. The Possibility of the Co-parceners Reuniting After the Separation:
The High Court considered whether the co-parceners had reunited after the separation indicated by the ikrarnama. The Privy Council found no proof of an intention to reunite in estate and interest. Evidence, including petitions for separate certificates and a kobala dated November 8, 1883, suggested an intention to maintain separate interests. The Privy Council concluded that the parties did not reunite as a joint family, thereby dismissing the argument of reunion.

Conclusion:
The Privy Council ultimately disagreed with the High Court's initial conclusion that there was no separation in estate and interest in 1883. It affirmed that the ikrarnama clearly effected a separation, converting the family members into tenants in common. The Privy Council also found the ikrarnama binding on the minors and dismissed the notion of reunion among the co-parceners. Consequently, the appeal to the High Court was allowed, the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court were discharged, and the suit of Ram Narain was dismissed with costs.