Judgment Case ID: 87

Judgment:
ivil Appeal No. 104 of 1050. Appeal from a judgment and decree dated the 9th April	 1947	 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Manohar Lal and Mukherjee JJ.) in First Appeal No. 68 of 1944 arising out of judgment and decree dated the 23rd December	 1943	 of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge	 Gaya	 in Suit No. 4 of 1941. Gurbachan Singh (Manohar Lal Sachdev	 with him) for the appellants. S.B. Jathar for the legal representative of respondent No. 4. 870 1952. May 16. FAZAL ALI J. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition which was dismissed by the trial court but was decreed by the High Court of Patna on appeal. The material facts of the case are briefly as follows: One Rambilas Das had 2 sons	 Budparkash Das and Nandki shore 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	 Shibtahl Das	 who was alleged to be one of the illegitimate sons of Nandkishore Das	 and Mst. Rambholi Kuer	 wife of Nanaksharan Das	 one of the sons off Nandkishore Das. Anoth er person	 Kuldip Das	 who was the daughter 's son of Nandki shore 's brother	 Budparkash Das	 intervened in the suit after its institution and was impleaded as the fifth defend ant. After the death of the second defendant	 Jai Narayan Das	 his wife	 Surat Kuer	 was brought on record. The plaintiff 's case was that Budparkash Das and Nandki shoreDas 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	 dis putes 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	 Shibtahl Das	 were dasipu tras 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 871 in possession of the properties of which he claimed parti tion	 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 Shibtahl Das	 fourthly that Mst. Rambholi Kuer was not the widow of Nanaksharan 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 defend ant No. 5	 Kuldip Das	 pleaded to the same effect and fur ther alleged that Budparkash Das was separate from Nandki shore 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 daughter 's 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 things	 (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 sepa rate	 (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 find ing 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	 Nandkishore	 and (3) that no suit for declaration of title was necessary and the plaintiff 's 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 113 872 Jai Narayan Das were the legitimate sons of Nand kishore Das. On the above findings	 the High Court passed a prelimi nary decree directing that separate allotments of the properties should be made to the plaintiff and the defend ants excepting Shibtahl Das. It was contended before us on behalf of the first appel lant that the finding of the courts below that the parties were Sudras was not correct and should be set aside. This contention must however fail	 since we find no good reason for departing from the wellestablished 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 Sudra community. The next question which was very seriously debated before us was whether Budparkash Das and Nandkishore Das were joint or separate. On this question	 the two courts below have expressed conflicting views	 but on a careful consideration of the evidence before us	 we are in clined to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court	 who after reviewing the entire evidence have come to the conclusion that Budparkash Das died in a state of separation from Nandkishore. It will be material to quote here the following extract from the judgment of the trial judge in which he sums up the evidence on this question : "From the oral evidence on the record	 this much is quite clear that Budparkash lived in a separate house and used to get crops. This defendant (defendant No. 5	 Kuldip Das) has also filed Exhibit B(2) chaukidari receipt for 1936 (Register No. 283) and Exhibit C 1 (copy of Assessment Register showing No. 284 in the name of Budparkash) which may go to show that possibly Budparkash was paying separate chowkidari tax	 The defendant No. 5 has also filed some 873 letters marked A 1	 A 5	 A 4	 A 6	 A 10 and A 12	 which not only show that this defendant is related to the defendants ' family	 but also that grains and money were offered to him from time to time. But none of these documents clearly show that there had been partition between Budparkash and Nandkishore or that the defendant No. 5 ever came in possession over any property	 as being the heir of Bud parkash. Of course there is some oral evidence to support him. But I do not think	 on considering and weighing the evidence that separation of Budparkash from Nandkishore has been proved. The learned pleader for the defendant No	 5 has urged that the circumstances considered in the light of the ruling reported in Behar Report	 Vol. 4 (1937 38) Privy Council at p. 302	 would support the defendant 's case as there was defined share of Budparkash and Nandkishore in the Khatyan (exts. G1 and G2). I am not prepared to agree with the learned pleader on this point	 as there is not a scrap of paper to show that Budparkash or even after him Kuldip Das separately appropriated the usufruct of any property	 or ever Budparkash showed any intention of separation	 I expect that if Budparkash had separated	 at least on his death the defendant No. 5 would have maintained an account book of his income from the properties in dispute	 specially as he lived at a distant place. He does not appear to have ever cared to look after the property or demand accounts from his alleged co sharers. " This summary of the evidence shows firstly	 that the two brothers lived in separate houses	 secondly	 that they paid separate chaukidari taxes	 and thirdly	 that Budparkash used to get grains and money from Nandkishore from time to time. The trial judge has also observed that the khatyans	 exhib its G 1 and G 2 record the defined shares of the two broth ers	 but the printed record shows that exhibits G 1 and G 2 are mere rent receipts. As the khatyan was not printed	 we sent for the original record and found that the entries in the khatyan	 which are exhibits F 1 and 	 have been correctly noted in the judgment of the trial court. It seems to us therefore that the findings which we have set out give greater support to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of defendant No. 5 than to the evidence adduced by the other parties	 and that being so	 we think that the finding of the High Court must be upheld. We were greatly impressed by several letters of exhibit A series	 which have been found to be genuine by both the courts below. The genuineness of the letters was attacked before us	 but we find no good reason for reversing the findings of the trial judge and the High Court. In one of these let ters	 exhibit A 10	 Nandkishore Das writing to Kuldip on the 12th June	 1934	 states that he was sending 25 maunds of rice	 7 maunds of khesari and rupees seventy five and then adds: "I have got with me all the accounts written	 which will be explained when you will come and you will render a just account of your share when you come". In another letter	 exhibit A 12	 which was written by Nandkishore to Kuldip on the I5th October	 1936	 the former states: "I wrote to you several times to adjust account of your share	 but you did not do so up till now. I write to you to come and examine the account of your share. I have not got money now. If you have got time	 then come for a day and have the account adjusted and take what may be found due to you". It seems to us that if the parties were really joint in the legal sense of the term	 there was no question of examining the accounts and adjusting them	 and there would have been no reference to the share of Kuldip in the produce or the money collected. The proper 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 de fendant No. 5	 who have stated from their personal knowledge that the two brothers lived in separate houses	 were sepa rate in mess and the produce 875 was divided between them half and half. It seems to us that the finding of the High Court as to the separation of the two brothers must be upheld. The third contention urged on behalf of the appellants relates to the question whether the plaintiff is entitled only to maintenance or to a share in the properties left by Nandkishore Das. The rights of an illegitimate son of a Sudra are considered in Mitaksbara Ch. 1	 section 12	 which is headed "Rights of a son by a female slave	 in the case of a Sudra 's estate". This text was fully considered by the Privy Council in Vellaiyappa vs Natarajan(1) and the conclu sions 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 statement 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 father 's estate and he cannot therefore demand partition against his father during the latter 's lifetime; secondly	 that on his father 's 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 parti tion 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. (1) A.I.R. 1931 P.C. 294. 876 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 legiti mate son. There can be no doubt that though the illegitimate son cannot enforce partition during the father 's lifetime and though he is not 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 legitimate sons. The last point put forward on behalf of the appellants was that the plaintiff not being in possession of the properties which are the subject of the suit	 he cannot maintain a suit for partition. This contention cannot prevail	 because the plaintiff is undoubtedly a cosharer in the properties and unless exclusion and ouster are pleaded and proved	 which is not the case here	 is entitled to partition. 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 defendant No. 5 in paragraphs 8 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 Das	 the smallest house divided into 2 havelis. 877 11. That this defendant has nothing to do with the eight annas interest in the properties given in schedule under than C and D relating to jagir and kasht lands	 which rightfully belonged to Nandkishore Das and has no concern with the properties noted in those schedules. " Paragraph 11 is rather ambiguously worded	 but it was conceded before us by the counsel for defendant No. 5 that the latter had no claim to any interest in the properties set out in schedules other than schedules C and D. Such being the purport of paragraphs 8 and 11	 the decree should provide that defendant No. 5 will be entitled only to a share in the properties set out in schedules C and D and will have no share in the properties set out in the other schedules. Subject to this modification	 the decree of the High Court is affirmed	 and this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the legal representative of 4th respondent: R.N. Sachthey.

Summary:
Under Hindu law	 though an illegitimate son of a Sudra cannot enforce partition during his father 's lifetime	 he can enforce partition after his father 's death if the father was separate from his collaterals and has left separate property and legitimate sons.