9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being carried on under the name style of Purandas Ranchhoddas Sons. It appears that he had different businesses mainly perfume business in two places in Hyderabad. He had four sons, namely, Ranchhoddas, Dwarkadas, Motilal, Babulal and a daughter Yoga Bai. Purandas died in the year 1962. Ranchhoddas was eldest son. That being the position, Ranchhodddas continued to look after the business. Dwarkadas died in the year 1966. His wife, Purna Bai and sons Daya Bhai and Raj Kumar filed a suit for partition of the properties as joint family property impleading Ranchhoddas as the Defendant No.1 and his sons as Defendants 2 to 5. Sons of Motilal, namely Raman Lal and Shanti Lal, were impleaded as Defendants 7 and 8 and Yoga Bai, daughter of Pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of Respondent No.7. No one has turned up for Respondent No.7, namely, the legal representatives of Yoga Bai. Legal Representatives of Respondent No.7 have chosen not to put in appearance though served. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the High Court while dealing with the appeal has appreciated the evidence in detail and has set aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. We see that it is within the scope of first appellate court to go into the question of fact and appraise the evidence available on record. The High Court has considered the statements of different witnesses who deposed during the proceedings of the suit as well as the documentary evidence. The High Court considered the evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the family was necessary which had already taken place earlier i.e. to say existence of joint property cannot be denied. Once their case of settlement in respect of the same property having taken place earlier has been dis-believed, there remain hardly any ground to resist the claim of the plaintiff for partition and 1/5th share in the properties. The case of the defendant that after the settlement the brothers have been residing separately and they have been carrying on their business separately, hence there remained nothing which was joint amongst the members of the family which could be partitioned is rightly held to be untenable. We find that after appreciation of the evidence the High Court has arrived at a finding that no such settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct which is supported by evidence and cogent reasons. In so far the other documents, which according to the appellant have not been considered, they are some partnership deeds which have been entered into between different members of the family in different combinations. It is sought to be established that they have been running their business separately under different partnerships. We feel that no such inference can be drawn. In a family which carries on a number of business, it is quite often that it is carried out under different names and styles and often constitutes different companies or partnerships for better handling of business or to keep it managable or for various other reasons. It is no proof of separation nor are the letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
