Case: Gur Narain Das And Another Vs. Gur Tahal Das And Others

2. One Rambilas Das had 2 sons, Budparkash Das and Nandkishore Das. Nandkishore Das had several sons, the plaintiff, Gurtahl Das being one of his illegitimate sons. The present suit was brought by Gurtahl Das against 4 persons, namely, Gurnarayan Das and Jai Narayan, Das, sons of Nandkishore Das; Shibtah Das, who was alleged to be one of the illegitimate sons of Nandkishore Das; and Mst. Rambholi Kuer, wife of Nandkishore Das. Another person, Kuldip Das, who was the daughters son of Nandkishores brother Budparkash Das, intervened in the suit after its institution and was impleaded as the fifth defendant. After the death of the second defendant, Jai Narayan Das, his wife, Surat Kuer, was brought on record.The plaintiffs case was that Budparkash Das and Nandkishore Das formed a joint Hindu family, and that Budparkash Das died without any male issue in a state of jointness with his brother, Nandkishore, with the result that the entire joint family property devolved on him. Subsequently disputes arose regarding the management and enjoyment of the properties among the plaintiff and the defendants, which compelled the plaintiff to institute the present suit for partition. The plaintiff alleged that the parties were Sudras and belonged to the Nanak Shai sect of Fakirs, and that he and the third defendant, Shibtahi Das, were dasiputras of Nandkishore Das by a concubine, and Jai Narayan Das and Gurnarayan Das were also dasiputras of Nandkishore by another concubine.The suit was contested mainly by the first defendant, Gurnarayan, Das, and Mst. Surat Kuer, on the following pleas: firstly that the suit was not maintainable as a suit for partition, because the plaintiff was never in possession of the properties of which he claimed partition, secondly that the family of the defendants were not Sudras but Dwijas and an illegitimate son could not sue for partition, thirdly that the defendants did not form a joint Hindu family with the plaintiff and Shibtahi Das, fourthly that Mst. Rambholi Kuer was not the widow of Nanaksaran Das, and fifthly that the plaintiff and Shibtahl Das were not sons of Nandkishore Das. The case of Mst. Rambholi Kuer was that the parties were Dwijas and not Sudras, and defendant No. 5, Kuldip Das pleaded to the same effect and further alleged that Budparkash Das was separate from Nandkishore Das, that although they did not divide the properties by metes and bounds, they used to divide the produce half and half, and that he was in possession of his share of the properties as the daughters son of Budparkash Das and they could not be made the subject of partition. Shibtahl Das supported the claim of the plaintiff.The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding, among other(1) that the plaintiff not being in joint possession of any of the properties the suit for partition was not maintainable, (2) that the parties were Sudras, (3) that Budparkash Das and Nandkishore Das were joint and not separate. (4) that the plaintiff had no cause of action, and (5) that Shibtahl Das had not proved that he was the son of Nandkishore. Against the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court at Patna, and Kuldip Das filed a cross-objection contesting the finding that Budparkash was joint with his brother. Nandkishore. The High Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and held (1) that the parties were Sudras and not Dwijas, (2) that Budparkash died in a state of separation from his brother Nadkishore and (3) that no suit for declaration of title was necessary and the plaintiffs failure to pay sufficient court-fee should not stand in the way of suitable relief being granted to him. Both the High Court and the trial Court found that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Gurnarayan Das and Jai Narayan Das, were the legitimate sons of Nadkishore Das. On the above findings the High Court passed a preliminary decree directing that separate allotments of the properties should be made to the plaintiff and the defendants excepting Shibtahl Das.

Reasoning: This contention must however fail, since we find no good reason for departing from the well-established practice of this Court of not disturbing concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. In the present case, the finding that the parties are Sudras is largely based on the oral evidence, and the learned Judges of the High Court in arriving at their conclusion have not over-looked the tests which have been laid down in a series of authoritative decisions for determining the question whether a person belongs to the regenerate community or to the sudracontention must however fail, since we find no good reason for departing from the well-established practice of this Court of not disturbing concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. In the present case, the finding that the parties are Sudras is largely based on the oral evidence, and the learned Judges of the High Court in arriving at their conclusion have not over-looked the tests which have been laid down in a series of authoritative decisions for determining the question whether a person belongs to the regenerate community or to the sudraproper conclusion to be arrived at is, as the witnesses for defendant No. 5 have stated, that though there was no partition by metes and bounds, the two brothers were divided in status and enjoyed the usufruct of the properties according to their respective shares. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of defendant No. 5, who have stated from their personal knowledge that the 2 brothers lived in separate houses, were separate in mess and the produce was divided between them half and half. It seems to us that the finding of the High Court as to the separation of the 2 brothers must berights of an illegitimate son of a Sudra are considered in Mitakshara, Ch. 1, S. 12, which is headed "Rights of a son by a female slave, in the case of a Sudras estate". This text was fully considered by the Privy Council in VELLAIYAPPA v. NATARAJAN and the conclusions derived therefrom were summarized as follows:- "Their Lordships are of opinion that the illegitimate son of a Sudra by a continuous concubine has the status of a son, and that he is a member of the family; that the share of inheritance given to him is not merely in lieu of maintenance, but in recognition of his status as a son; that where the father has left no separate property and no legitimate son, but was joint with his collaterals, the illegitimate son is not entitled to demand a partition of the joint family property in their hands, but is entitled as a member of the family to maintenance out of that property." This statements of the law, with which we agree, may be supplemented by three other well-settled principles, these being firstly, that the illegitimate son does not acquire by birth any interest in his fathers estate and he cannot therefore demand partition against his father during the latters lifetime, secondly that on his fathers death, the illegitimate son succeeds as a coparcener to the separate estate of the father along with the legitimate son (s) with a right of survivorship and is entitled to enforce partition against the legitimate son(s). and thirdly that on a partition between a legitimate and an illegitimate son, the illegitimate son takes only one-half of what he would have taken if he was a legitimate son.It seems to us that the second proposition enunciated above follows from the following passage in the Mitakshara text : "But after the demise of the father, if there be sons of a wedded wife, let these brothers allow the son of the female slave to participate for half a share." If, therefore, the illegitimate son is a coparcener with the legitimate son of his father, it must necessarily follow that he is entitled to demand partition against the legitimate son. There can be no doubt that though the illegitimate son cannot enforce partition during the fathers lifetime and though he is no entitled to demand partition where the father has left no separate property and no legitimate son but was joint with his collaterals, he can enforce partition in a case like the present, where the father was separate from his collaterals and has left separate property and legitimatecontention cannot prevail, because the plaintiff is undoubtedly a co-sharer in the properties and unless exclusion and ouster are pleaded and proved, which is not the case here, is entitled to partition.11. Thus, all the points urged on behalf of the appellants fail, but, in one respect, the decree of the High Court must be modified. To appreciate this, reference will have to be made to the following statements made by the defendant No. 5 in paragraph 3 and 11 of his written statement : "8. That this defendant holds moiety share in jagir and kasht lands. Mahanth Budh Parkash Das was living separately in the northern house allotted to him and the southern portion was allotted to the thakhta of Nandkishore Dass, the smallest house divided into 2 havelis.