1969 (2) TMI 195 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Mohammad Patti lands are joint family property.
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-inclusion of Mohammad Patti lands.
3. Allegations of fraud in the compromise petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Mohammad Patti lands are joint family property:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether Mohammad Patti lands, originally belonging to Kesho Mishra, are joint family property. The court noted that all parties were members of a joint Hindu family until the institution of the previous title suit (T.S. 31 of 1958). The sale certificate (Ext. 7) showed that these lands were purchased by Ramdeyal Mishra in 1931. The court emphasized that even in a joint Hindu family, individual members can acquire separate properties. The presumption of joint family property arises only if the joint family had sufficient surplus income from its nucleus to make such acquisitions. The court found no evidence in the pleadings or oral testimony about the extent of joint family property or income in 1931. The court also noted a broad statement in the previous partition suit's plaint (Ext. A-1) but found it insufficient to establish a surplus income for the acquisition. The court concluded that the joint family did not have a sufficient nucleus to presume the property as joint family property.

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-inclusion of Mohammad Patti lands:
The court examined whether the suit was defective for not including Mohammad Patti lands as the subject-matter of partition. The plaintiff claimed that the acquisition was made with money belonging to his wife, supported by a sale deed (Ext. 13) showing she sold her inherited land for Rs. 1300 in 1920. The court found the plaintiff's explanation credible, noting no evidence that the money was spent before 1931. The court rejected the defendants' uncorroborated testimony that joint family funds were used. The court held that Mohammad Patti lands were not joint family property, thus the suit was not defective for their non-inclusion.

3. Allegations of fraud in the compromise petition:
The defendants alleged that the plaintiff fraudulently inserted a recital in the compromise petition, claiming Mohammad Patti lands as his exclusive property. The court rejected this claim, noting that the compromise petition was signed with knowledge of its contents. The court found no evidence supporting the defendants' claim that their signatures were obtained on blank papers or without reading the document. The court emphasized that the compromise petition explicitly excluded Mohammad Patti lands from the schedules of joint properties, supporting the plaintiff's case. The court also addressed the legal argument that the fraud claim could not be raised due to limitation, citing Section 44 of the Evidence Act, which allows challenging a judgment obtained by fraud in collateral proceedings without time limitation. However, the court found no fraud, affirming the validity of the compromise.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the judgment and decree of the lower court. The court held that Mohammad Patti lands were not joint family property and the suit was not defective for their non-inclusion. The court also rejected the fraud allegations, finding no evidence of fraudulent conduct in the compromise petition. The appeals were dismissed with costs in favor of the contesting respondents.