2001 (8) TMI 1437 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether L. Bal Mukand constituted a joint Hindu Family with defendant No. 1 only.
2. Whether the plaintiff separated from the joint Hindu family as alleged in the written statement.
3. Was late L. Bal Mukand owner of one half share of the joint Hindu family property.
4. What is the property available for partition as owned by the joint Hindu family headed by L. Bal Mukand.
5. To what shares are the parties entitled and in which properties.
6. Has any Will been made by L. Bal Mukand as alleged? If so, what is its effect.
7. Relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether L. Bal Mukand constituted a joint Hindu Family with defendant No. 1 only.
The learned Single Judge held that the joint Hindu family headed by Lala Bal Mukand consisted of himself, the plaintiff, and defendant No. 1, not just defendant No. 1 alone. This finding was based on the evidence that Bal Mukand had thrown his property into the common stock of the joint Hindu family.

Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff separated from the joint Hindu family as alleged in the written statement.
The learned Single Judge decided against the defendant, holding that the plaintiff did not separate from the joint Hindu family. The evidence suggested that the joint family continued to exist, and the plaintiff remained a part of it.

Issue 3: Was late L. Bal Mukand owner of one half share of the joint Hindu family property.
The court concluded that property 8/10 and 8/11, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which were initially separate properties of Bal Mukand, had been thrown into the common stock and thus became part of the joint Hindu family property. On his death, Bal Mukand held a 1/3rd share, while the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 held the remaining 1/3rd each.

Issue 4: What is the property available for partition as owned by the joint Hindu family headed by L. Bal Mukand.
The court found that only two immovable properties, 8/10 and 8/11, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, were available for partition as owned by the joint Hindu family headed by Lala Bal Mukand.

Issue 5: To what shares are the parties entitled and in which properties.
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/3rd share in the two properties, and defendant No. 1 was entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share. Defendant No. 1 was also entitled to the 1/3rd share of the property held by the deceased Bal Mukand based on the Will, with property No. 8/11 going to Ms. Shashi, daughter of defendant No. 1, for her life and then to the two sons of defendant No. 1.

Issue 6: Has any Will been made by L. Bal Mukand as alleged? If so, what is its effect.
The court found that there was unimpeachable evidence that Bal Mukand was of sound disposing mind and had validly executed the Will dated 5.6.1971 (Ex.D-4). The Will was attested as required by law, and the propounder successfully explained the circumstances, removing any suspicion about its due execution. Therefore, the Will was held to be the last Will of Bal Mukand.

Issue 7: Relief.
The plaintiff/appellant's suit was dismissed, and the findings of the learned Single Judge on issues 1 to 4 were set aside. The properties 8/10 and 8/11, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, were held to be individual properties of Bal Mukand and not joint Hindu family properties. Consequently, RFA (OS) 31/76 was dismissed, and RFA (OS) 37/76 was allowed, with each party bearing their respective costs.