Case: Prakash Chand Sharma and Others Vs. Narendra Nath Sharma

Both the plaintiffs are dead and the appellants are their heirs and legal representatives. Bhagwati Prasad, Ram Saran Lal and Babu Lal were the sons of Pandit Raman Lal. Raman Lal died sometime in the year 1900. According to the case of the plaintiffs their family remained joint even after the death of Raman Lal. Certain properties were ancestral left by Raman Lal and certain properties were subsequently acquired by the joint family. Bhagwati Prasad was the karta of the family until he died in the year 1922 leaving behind a widow and an infant son Narendra Nath who was only two years of age then. Plaintiffs wanted partition of the properties left by Raman Lal and of schedule II properties as subsequently acquired by the joint family. The suit was instituted on May 1, 1951. Thecontested the suit and assured that after the death of Pandit Raman Lal the three brothers separated and partitioned the properties left by Raman Lal which consisted of a house and a shop only. Since then the branch of Bhagwati Prasad has been separate. All properties mentioned in Schedule II and a few mentioned in Schedule I append to the plaint were acquired by Bhagwati Prasad in his own name. Thus according to the case of the respondent there was no joint family in existence and no property was available for partition.2. The trial Court decreed the suit and directed partition of all the suit properties. On appeal by the defendant the High Court has dismissed the suit accepting his case in toto. Hence this appeal by the heirs of the original plaintiffs.

Reasoning:
3. We have heard learned for the parties who took us through the relevant documents in the case. The documentary evidence clearly establishes the case of the defendant and negatives that of the plaintiffs. We fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on the basis of the said documents. The documents relied upon by the plaintiffs did not prove their case at all. It is not necessary for us to repeat all that has been said by the High court in its judgment.As against the numerous documents relied upon on behalf of the defendant the plaintiffs field and relied upon documents which did not prove or probabilise their case at all. We may briefly refer to some of the documents to which our attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Ext. 2 is a copy of the decree dated May 12, 1904 in favour of Bhagwati Prasad, Ram Saran and Babu Ram in respect of a right of easement. Ext. R is a copy of the sale deed dated July 16, 1895 in favour of Raman Lal. Comparing the boundaries given in Ext. 2 with those in Ext. R, it was found that the decree was in respect of this ancestral house. It did not, therefore, advance the case of plaintiffs at all. Ext. 7 is a copy of the judgment dated March 28, 1935 in a certain suit in favour of one Ganga Ram against Babu Lal and others. Learn Counsel for the appellants tried to show from the judgment under issue No. 6 that the plea of separation setup by Bhagwatis son was not accepted by the trial Court. But on appeal the judgment was reversed and the suit was dismissed. A copy of the appellant judgment is Ext. 3. Instead of improving the case of separation. Ext. 8 is a copy of judgment in another suit filled by Mr. Ganga Ram against Babu Lal and others. This is dated May 8, 1936. The suit was decreed by the trial Court rejecting the plea of separation set up by Narendra. But it was dismissed by the High Court as admitted by Babu Lal in his evidence. Exts. 45 to 50, Ext. 57, Ext. 60 are letters written inter se between the three brothers during the lifetime of Bhagwati Prasadmostly between 1910 to 1920. The contents of these letters do show that in the kiln business all the three brothers were taking interest. Instructions were being given by Bhagwati Prasad to his brothers in connection with the management of the business. On carefully going through these letters, we found that the other two brothers may have some sort of interest in the kiln business carried on by Bhagwati Prasad. That interest could be because they were erstwhile members of the family or because they were taken as working partners servants. There was no statement in any of the letters to indicate that the business was that of a joint family of the three brothers of that Bhagwati Prasad was joint with his brothers. In agreement with the High Court we hold that the said letters do not lend any appreciable support to the case of the plaintiffs. Similarly there are some letters Ext. 64, 65 andeither written by third person whom some of the brothers or by Bhagwati Prasad. They stand on the same footing as their other letters. Lastly our attention was drawn to a copy of a statement of accounts of income and expenses of the family from the year 1922 to 1928. Such a sheet of paper containing the accounts of six years neither inspired any confidence nor on its face after examining the accounts we found anything in support of the plaintiffs case.9. We therefore come to the conclusion that the High Court was right in dismissing the plaintiffs suit.