Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1930 (3) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o this suit that the suit lands are ancestral properties. The four brothers effected a partition of. the jahagir income amongst themselves long time back and as a consequence each one of them got a two annas share which was separately paid to them. In course of time, Hari separated first in respect of the rest of the property and later on Mahadev separated. The question in this case is whether Narayan and Krishnarao held the property in suit as joint tenants so that on the death of Krishnaro in 1918 the whole property would be governed by the rule of survivorship and vest in Narayan. 3. It is important to note that in the Record of Rights Narayan and Krishnarao were regarded as holders of eight annas share each in respect of the suit lan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Privy Council in Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatachala (1924) 27 Bom. L. R 733.. But Mr. Rele for the appellant argued that the learned District Judge went wrong in placing reliance upon the decision in Dagadu Govind v. Sahhubai, to the exclusion of various other rulings amongst which he mentioned the Privy Council decision in Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenhatachala and the rulings in Babanna v. Parana (1926)28BOMLR1446 and Bhimabai v. Gurunathgouda AIR1928Bom367 . On a consideration of all these rulings, I find that the rulings are all reconcilable and there is no error of law in the judgment of the District Court. It is clear that, according to Hindu law, a partition between coparceners may be partial either in respect of property or in res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is a case in which on the facts as stated above, the principle in both the sets of rulings will be applicable. It seems that the trial Court bad not paid regard to the principle laid down in the case of Dagadw Govind v. Sakhubai, for it remarks in paragraph 8 that on the partition of the jahagir income the ancestral land remained joint. Having regard to these circumstances, I do not think that the learned District Judge was wrong in remarking that the learned Subordinate Judge of the first Court had taken no notice of the ruling in Dagadv Govind v. Sakhubai. 8. Mr. Rele contended that the revaluation of the entire evidence by the learned District Judge was halting in its result because the learned District Judge did not take into consid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to that course, and Krishnarao being dead the present plaintiff is not expected to give us any useful information on the point. Narayan, Who should have been able to give information on the point, did not care to go into the witness-box or get himself examined by obtaining a commission. Not only Narayan did not care to place before the Court all the facts which must be within his knowledge, but defendant No. 1, who was really the contesting defendant and stood to lose the case if his contentious were not accepted, did not care to secure the necessary information by obtaining it from Narayan by either citing him as a witness or getting an order to examine him on commission. This circumstance has a great significance if we look to the deci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12. The effect of all these facts and circumstances points in my view to the conclusion that Narayan and Krishnarao could not be said to be joint tenants with the result that on Kishnarao's death, Narayan, the last survivor, became entitled to the whole property in suit. 13. I should have mentioned that the Mukhtyar of Narayan was examined in the case at Exhibit 26. He said that he was not able to say what Krishnarao and Narayan did about the income of the suit lands. This is a point on which the Mukhtyar should have been well informed because on the date on which he was examined, Narayan was certainly alive. A statement of this nature is not calculated to further the cause of a master who himself stays away from Court. 14. For .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates