appeal from original decree no. 863 of 1993 (r). ---...
TRANSCRIPT
APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL DECREE No. 863 of 1993 (R).
---
Against the judgment dated 29th May, 1993 and decree signed on10th June, 1993 passed by Shri Mahendra Narayan Singh, 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in Partition Suit No. 122 of 1990.
---
Ravindra Taunk and others … … … … … Appellant
Versus
Smt. Vasanti B. Taunk and others … … … … Respondents
---
For the Appellants : M/s. P.K. Prasad, Senior Advocate, Rahul Gupta and Ayush Aditya,
Advocate.For the Respondents No. 1,2 and 4 : Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal, Advocate.For the Respondent No. 3 : M/s. S.N. Das, Advocate.For Respondents No. 5 to 9 & 12 : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, D.K.
Chakravorty, Rohit Roy andHarjeet Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 10 & 16 : M/s. Manjul Prasad, SeniorAdvocate and S.L. Agrawal,Advocate.
---
P R E S E N T
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
---
C.A.V. ON 19.04.2012. PRONOUNCED ON 25.4.2012.
---
Poonam Srivastav, J. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated
29.5.1993 and 10.6.1993 respectively passed by Shri Mahendra Narayan
Singh, 2nd additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in Partition Suit No.
122 of 1990.
2. The suit was filed for partition of the joint Hindu family properties
which consists of 13 properties. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the
ground that common ancestor of the parties Nanji Govindji Taunk died on
25th March, 1955 and all the aforesaid 13 properties are joint Hindu
family property and, the plaintiff and defendants are co-sharers. The
plaintiff claimed that the properties are liable to be partitioned. The
plaintiff claimed following reliefs:-
(a) for a a preliminary decree for 1/7th share in the
properties
described in Schedule 'B';
(b) for appointment of a survey knowing pleader
2.
commissioner to demarcate the plaintiff's 1/7th share in
the said schedule "B" properties;
(c) for a final decree on the basis of the pleader
commissioner's report and allotment chart;
(d) for costs of the suit;
(e) for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may
be entitled under law and equity.
3. Nanji Govindji Taunk left behind his widow i.e. 2nd wife Jetu Bai and
four sons from the wed lock and three sons from the wed lock of 1st wife
Heji Bai, who predeceased her husband in the year 1920. The
genealogical table of Late Nanji Govindji Taunk, at the time of institution
of the partition suit is detailed below:--
NANJI GOVINDJI TAUNK
(died on 25.03.1955)
Heji Bai Jetu Bai(predeceased in 1920) (died on 05.06.1974)
3 sons 4 sons
Ranchhod N.Taunk, Shyamji N. Taunk, Lakshman N. Taunk Govardhandas N. Taunk(died on 27.05.79) (Def. No. 4) (died on 11.10.73) (Plaintiff)
* Ratilal R. Taunk - son * Girish L. Taunk - son * Balram N. Taunk (Def. No. 10) (Def. No. 5) (Def. No. 1)
* Jayant R. Taunk - son * Nagilal L. Taunk - son * Nandlal N. Taunk (Def. No. 11) (Def. No. 6) (Def. No. 2)
* Jayo - daughter * Nitin L. Taunk - son * Hansraj N. Taunk (Def. No. 12) (Def. No. 7) (Def. No. 3)
* Must. Kokila - daughter * Must. Manjula - daughter (Def. No. 13) (Def. No. 8)
* Pushpa - daughter * Hansa - daughter (Def. No. 14) (Def. No. 9)
* Renu - daughter (Def. No. 15)
* Raji Bai - widow (Def. No. 16)
4. All the brothers were arrayed as defendants in Title (Partition) Suit
No.122 of 1990. The suit was decreed in respect of Item Nos. I, II, III and
V holding that these properties i.e. Item No. I-Holding No. 70, Contractor's
Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur; Item No. III-Holding No. 105, Contractor's
Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and Item No. V is No. 6, S.B. Shop Area,
Bistupur, Jamshedpur are joint and, therefore, the plaintiffs and the
defendants are all entitled for an equal share (1/7th share) in the said
property. (So far the findings in respect of Property Nos. I, II, III and V are
3.
concerned, there is no dispute between the present plaintiff-appellants
and the defendant-respondents).
5. The suit was dismissed in respect of Property No. IV- Nalanda Hotel,
S.B. Shop Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur; Item No. VII All House Properties
(one godown on "N" Road, West near Khalsa Club, P.S. Bistupur,
Jamshedpur. Item No. VI-Natraj Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur; Item No.
VIII-TMG 10 and 11, Bistupur, Jamshedpur; Item No. IX-Godown at
Northern Town, Bistupur, Jamshedpur; Item No. X-House at Khasmahal,
Jugsalai, Jamshedpur; Item No. XI-Land measuring 2068 acres at
Asanboni, Chandil; Item No. XII-Land measuring 1.02 acres at Pardih,
Mango, Jamshedpur and Item No. XIII-Land measuring 65ft. x 45ft, Falidih,
Raipur, M.P. were held as not joint family properties.
6. One written statement was filed on behalf of defendants no. 1, 2
and 4; two separate written statements were filed on behalf of defendant
no. 3 and defendant no. 10. Defendants No. 5, 6 and 7 did not file their
written statement and did not contest the suit. The plaint was amended
after the entire evidence was recorded on 16th March, 1993 and the
amendment was incorporated. Subsequent to the aforesaid amendment,
defendants no. 10 and 16 and defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed additional
written statements.
7. Issues were framed on 6th May, 1991 and the suit proceeded on
the basis of these pleadings.
After the suit was dismissed in respect of the properties other than
Property Nos. I, II, III and V which were held to be the joint Hindu family
property, the instant appeal was preferred. Defendants-respondents no.
5, 6 and 7 filed a counter claim in this Court on 14.10.2004 under Order
XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed vide order
dated 9th March, 2011 and the same was challenged in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The contesting parties have informed that it is still
pending. Previously, this Court postponed the hearing of the appeal on
account of pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme
Court. Subsequently, I. A. No. 1811of 2011 was preferred by the plaintiff-
appellants wherein they made a prayer that the appellants want to
withdraw the appeal in respect of Item No. VII. The appellants
unequivocally stated in the interlocutory application that the findings
arrived at by the court below were acceptable to him. This interlocutory
application (I.A. No. 1811 of 2011) was challenged on behalf of the
defendants-respondents no. 5, 6 and 7.
8. Shri Indrajit Sinha, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 5, 6 and
7, vehemently argued that he has a right to challenge withdrawal of the
4.
appeal in respect of one property which apparently is collusive. Shri
Indrajit Sinha brought to my notice an order passed by this Court in I.A.
No. 165 of 2005 dated 5th May, 2005 where the parties were injuncted
from alienating the property during the pendency of this appeal. This
order was passed during the pendency of the cross objection. Since the
cross objection has been rejected and the special leave petition is
pending, the subsequent I. A. at the instance of of the plaintiffs was
moved in collusion with respondent no. 1,only with a view to deprive
defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 from the property and to circumvent the order
of injunction granted by this Court. They claimed that they have a share
in the property and further assertion of Mr. Indrajit Sinha is that though
no written statement was filed on their behalf, but he has a right to
advance his argument and challenge the judgment under Order XLI Rule
33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Emphasis on behalf of respondents no.
5, 6 and 7 is that this is a partition suit and, therefore, all the parties are
plaintiffs and have an equal claim and share in the properties. Thus, in
view of Order XXIII Rule 1 (5), it clearly prohibits abandonment of part of
claim under sub-rule (1) or to withdraw part of the claim without the
consent of the other plaintiffs (partners of the partition suit). Learned
counsel has also stressed that though defendants no. 5, 6 and 7 failed to
prefer a written statement as well as their counter claim is rejected, the
said defendants cannot be deprived to contest the appeal under Order
XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and others vs. Bapu Koyappa
Patil and others 2003 SCC 552. Paragraph 13 of the observation of the
Apex Court is quoted below:--
"In a suit for partition, plaintiff and defendants are parties of equal status. If the right of partition has been recognised and upheld by the court, merely because only some of the plaintiffs have appealed and not all, the court was not powerless. It could invoke provisions of Order 41 of Rule 4 read with Order 41 of Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The object of Order 41 of Rule 4 is to enable one of the parties to a suit to obtain relief in appeal when the decree appealed from proceeds on a ground common to him and others. The court in such an appeal may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the parties who are in the same interest as the appellant".
10. This is in support of the contention that the withdrawal by the
plaintiff at this stage of appeal which arises out of a partition suit smacks
of fraud and with an ulterior motive to deprive the defendants from their
share. It is also submitted that this Court has a right to examine these
aspects before the plaintiff-appellants is permitted to withdraw part of
the relief claimed in the suit so far it relates to property no. VII. Further
argument is that in a partition suit, all the defendants-plaintiffs have
equal rights; and, therefore, in the instant case, the suit cannot be
5.
withdrawn without consent of all the parties.
11. Shri P.K. Prasad, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayush Aditya,
Advocate argued that if this contention of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 is accepted, then Order XXIII Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure will never be applicable in any partition
suit whatsoever.
12. After hearing the respective counsel at length, I have also noticed
that injunction was granted during the time when cross-objection was
pending. Respondent No. 1 was also restrained from alienating the
property. Subsequently this cross-objection was rejected firstly because
no written statement was filed and secondly it was preferred at a very
belated stage. The appellants' counsel requested to await the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending S.L.P. on the cross-objection and
thereafter proceed with the final hearing.
13. Shri Indrajit Sinha gave statement on the basis of instruction of his
client that he will not press S.L.P. before the Apex Court in case he is
permitted to participate in the appeal and contest the appeal within the
four corners and ambit of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 were arrayed as defendants
before the trial court and they are also parties. Admittedly they also have
an equal share in the property being descendants of the common
ancestor. It goes without saying that the power of the court under Order
XLI Rule 33 is inherent and a decree and order can be made not
withstanding that the appeal is only to a part of the decree and in favour
of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or
parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. Evidently Mr. Indrajit
Sinha has stated that he will not press S.L.P., therefore, this appeal can
be heard without awaiting the result of the Apex Court. Respondents No.
5, 6 and 7 are, therefore, permitted to advance their argument regarding
the properties in question including Property No. VII irrespective of the
fact that the plaintiff wants to withdraw his claim over the said property.
This Court while disposing of I.A. No. 168 of 2005 was also satisfied that
respondent no.1 or any of the party cannot be allowed to alienate the
property during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, an order of
status quo was passed. This Court while deciding the instant appeal has
to ensure substantial justice and, therefore, the interlocutory application
moved at the behest of the plaintiff for withdrawal of his claim over
Property No. VII, even if allowed, respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 are entitled
to raise their objection within the ambit of Order XLI Rule 33 C.P.C. The
share and claim of the respective parties shall, therefore, be examined
6.
subsequently while deciding different properties at a later stage. The
plaintiff shall, however, make no claim over the property no. VII. His I.A.
stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
14. The plaint case as pleaded by the plaintiff-appellants is that all the
parties to the suit are Hindus and are governed by the Hindu Succession
Act. The common ancestor Late Govindji Kanji Taunk had two sons,
namely, Kachraj Govindji Taunk and Nanji Govindji Taunk. There was
amicable partition between the two brothers and they had separate
earning, residence and there was a severance of joint status. The suit
was instituted for partitioning the property of Nanji Govindji Taunk and
his heirs and legal representatives. The genealogical chart has already
been detailed above. The assertion in paragraph 7 of the plaint is that
Nanji Govindji had a large business out of his own income. Several
immovable properties and pucca houses were constructed and he also
left large number of movable properties in the shape of business of
different variety. The properties were acquired in his own name and some
in the name of the members of his joint family. In paragraph 12 of the
plaint, it is submitted that with effect from 1.1.1958, all the brothers
except Ranchhod decided to start a contract business in the name and
style of "Nanji Govindji & Sons". During continuation of the said firm,
some land at Asanboni and Pardih situated at National Highway No. 33
was purchased. Six brothers also purchased some land for Orchard and
cultivation purpose in the name of joint family members, namely,
Rajendra Shyamji and Govardhan Das Nanji, the plaintiff in the name of
Nanji Govindji & Sons. Thus the total land measuring about 21.70 acres
was purchased with an understanding that all the six brothers will enjoy
the fruits of the said property. It is further pleaded that about ten years
before the suit was instituted, Shyamji Nanji was put incharge of the land
to manage the same on behalf of the joint family but since last five years
till the day the suit was instituted, usu fructs of the land was not being
shared. The joint family also purchased Plot No. 65 in Khasmahal area
and constructed a bungalow in the year 1965. Further contention is that
the joint family acquired the land at "N" Town, Jamshedpur and also at
"N" Road, Bistupur near Khalsa Club for godown purposes in the
intervening period commencing from 1962 to 1968. In paragraph 15, the
contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff is that the contract and other
business used to be run in partnership in different names and joint family
members were partners of the said partnership business. In paragraph
17, the plaintiff has pleaded that during the period 1978-1979, the three
brothers suggested to reduce the number of partners in all the three
7.
firms for the purpose of income tax facility but no actual division took
place; only the returns were filed in different names with different
partners. Defendant No. 4 is alleged to have made a wrongful gain. The
plaintiff was deliberately segregated from all the business and he was
only concerned with the business Taunk Trading Co. and Taunk Brothers
which is being carried out from a rented premises. The allegation in
paragraph 19 of the plaint is that all the other five brothers claimed that
there is already a partition between the brothers and, therefore, this led
to institution of the suit being Title (Partition) Suit No. 122 of 1990.
15. Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 and 11 to 15 did not appear and file a written
statement. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 4, 3, 10 and 16 had contested the
suit by filing three written statement. As already stated above, one
written statement on behalf of defendants no. 1, 2 and 4 was jointly filed.
Defendants No. 3 filed a separate written statement and also adopted the
stand taken by defendants no. 1, 2 and 4. Defendant Nos. 10 and 16
preferred a separate written statement after the plaint was amended on
12.5.1993. An additional written statement was preferred by defendants
no. 10 and 16 and defendant nos 1, 2 and 4. The amendment was made
in paragraph 9 to the effect that Item Nos. I to V and VIII of Schedule B
properties were acquired by Nanji Govindji Taunk during his life time
between the year 1927 to 1948. Item Nos. 4 and 8 of the said schedule
were acquired by Nanji Govindji Taunk in the name of his son Shyamji N.
Taunk for the benefit of the joint family in the year 1939 and 1948
respectively. The properties described as Item Nos. 6, 7 and 9 to 13 were
acquired from the joint family fund/ properties of Nanji Govindji Taunk
and thus the Hindu undivided family of Nanji Govindji Taunk is still in
existence and there has been no partition of the properties between the
coparceners of the said Hindu undivided family. Each brother is entitled
to 1/5th share of all the properties.
16. The plaintiff has examined altogether two witnesses. P.W. 1 is the
plaintiff himself and P.W. 2 is J.B. Makwa. The exhibits detailed below are
the documents relied upon by the plaintiff:-
(i) Exts. 1, 1/A and 1/B are the three notices of the plaintiff dated
23.08. 1984, 12.09.1984 and 01.09. 1990 respectively.
(ii) Exts. 2 to 2/O are the registration receipts of the Post and
Telegraph Department.
(iii) Exts. 3 to 3/M are the acknowledgement receipts.
(iv) Ext. 4 is a registered envelop.
(v) Ext. 5 is the registered sale deed no. 4370 dated 14.07.1965
executed by vendor Dilip Kumar Aikhat in favour of Nanji
8.
Govindji & Sons.
(vi) Ext. 6 is the certified copy of ledger of Union Bank of India
pertaining to the month of July 1960.
(vii) Ext. 7 is a certificate dated 15.05.1991 issued by the
aforesaid bank.
(viii) Ext. 8 is a certificate of the Post and Telegraph department.
(ix) Exts. 9 and 9/A are assessments of income tax pertaining to
the year 1982-83 and 1981-82.
(x) Ext. 10 is page nos. 17 to 23 of a written roll of Nanji Govindji.
(xi) Ext. 11 is a letter dated 23.12.1980.
(xii) Exts. 13 to 13/D are the 5 nos. of slips in respect of mutation.
17. The contesting defendants have also examined eight witnesses,
namely, Nanalal Taunk (D.W. 1), Chitranjan Mandal (D.W. 2), Sahdeo
Pandey (D.W. 3), Raj Govind Singh (D.W. 4), Nagin Taunk (D.W. 5),
Hemant Taunk (D.W. 6), Suresh Sharma (D.W. 7) and Ratilal Taunk (D.W.
8), out of whom D.W. 1 is defendant no. 2 and D.W. 8 is defendant no.10.
D.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are totally formal witnesses. D.W. 7 is Manager of
Nalanda Hotel. The contesting defendants have exhibited the following
documents:-
(i) Exts. A and A/1 are the two unregistered documents of
mutual settlement dated 31.07.1980 and 14.03.1976
respectively.
(ii) Exts. B and B/1 are the letters dated 5.6.1980 and 1.1.1984
addressed to Shyamji and his other brothers by
Govardhandas Taunk respectively.
(iii) Ext. C is an unregistered dissolution of partnership deed
dated 31st October, 1978.
(iv) Exts. D to D/3 are four unregistered agreements all dated 1st
November, 1978.
(v) Ext. E is a receipt dated 13.02.1956 issued by Ranchhod Nanji
Taunk and Exts. E/1 to E/4 are the four receipts dated 13.02.
1956 issued by Navyug Uddyog.
(vi) Exts. F and F/1 are two deeds of mutual agreement dated
17.03.1976.
(vii) Ext. G is an application made for obtaining certificate u/s 230
(1) of the Income Tax Act.
(viii) Exts. H to H/12 are various signatures.
(ix) Ext. I is the Income Tax Assessment Order dated 4.4.1957.
(x) Ext. J is a register of sale deed.
(xi) Ext. K is a partnership agreement.
9.
(xii) Ext. L is a certificate issued by Govardhandas Nanji Taunk;
Ext. L/1 is a certificate issued by Nalanda Hotel; and
Ext. L/2 is a certificate issued by Taunk Brothers.
(xiii) Exts. M and M/1 are the two documents pertaining to the
assessment year 1981-82.
(xiv) Ext. N is an unregistered deed of partnership dated 30th
October, 1973 and Ext. N/1 is a partnership deed dated 1st
April, 1979.
(xv) Exts. O to O/7 are the documents pertaining to Income Tax
assessment.
(xvi) Ext. P is a notice of dissolution of partnership and its
reconstitution.
(xvii) Exts. Q to Q/3 are four unregistered deeds of relinquishment.
(xviii) Exts. R and R/1 are two certificates issued by the Income Tax
department in respect of payment of income tax.
(xix) Exts. S and S/1 are two Demand Notices U/S 156 of the
Income Tax Act.
18. The following issues were framed by the learned court below:-
(1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(2) Is the suit barred by limitation?
(3) Is the suit barred under the Specific Relief Act?
(4) Has the plaintiff any cause of action against defendant
no. 10?
(5) Is the plaint liable to be rejected for failure of the
plaintiff to plead material facts and particulars?
(6) Is the suit barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and
acquiescence?
(7) Which properties of Schedule 'B' of the plaintiff were
acquired by Nanji Govindji Taunk in his own name or
were acquired by heirs in the name of members of joint
family?
(8) Is the suit barred for acquiescence?
(9) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?
19. I have gone through the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences, the respective arguments of the counsel. The questions
formulated for decision in the instant appeal are as follow:--
(i) If the claim of the plaintiff that the entire property
mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint are joint property and
continues as joint even today and partnership business was
acquired from the joint Hindu family nucleus and, therefore,
10.
the business including partnership firm are liable to be
distributed amongst all the six brothers?
(ii) If the plaintiff has discharged his onus by means of the
oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the aforesaid
questions and thereby entitled for a share in all the
properties?
20. The plaintiff and all the defendants have not disputed regarding
Property Nos. (I), (II), (III) and (V). All the parties to the suit/appeal agreed
that the aforesaid properties were purchased by their common ancestor
and, therefore, each one of them have equal share in the aforesaid
properties. The trial court has also recorded its finding that admittedly
Item No. (I) was acquired in the year 1927; Item No. (II) in February,
1945; Item No. (III) in January, 1931 and Item No. (V) in June, 1938. I am
in complete agreement with the findings of the trial court in respect of
the aforesaid properties in respect of Item Nos. I, II, III and V. There is no
controversy between the respective parties and, therefore, I need not
record any finding so far these properties are concerned. The judgment
and decree of the court below are confirmed in respect of Item Nos. I, II,
III and V.
21. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel, has addressed on behalf
of respondents no. 10 and 16. Respondent No. 10 (Ratilal R. Taunk) is son
of Late Ranchhod N. Taunk and respondent no. 16 Raji Bai widow of Late
Ranchhod N. Taunk. Ranchhod N. Taunk is one of the sons of Nanji
Govindji Taunk from his first wife Heji Bai. Ranchhod N. Taunk died on
27.5.1979 leaving behind his widow Raji Bai, two sons and four
daughters, defendants no. 10 to 16. The claim of respondents no. 10 and
16 is only in respect of Item No. VI, beside the properties held to be joint
Hindu family property which is a house property known as "Natraj
Mansion". This is one of the properties described in Schedule B of the
plaint. The entire case of respondents no. 10 and 16 rests on the
additional written statement which was filed subsequent to the
amendment in the plaint. The plaintiff has though included this property
no. VI in Schedule B claiming this also to be a joint family property and
share of all other parties. It is contended that Ranchhod N. Taunk had
separated during the life time of his father. The additional written
statement on behalf of defendant nos. 10 and 16 also proceeds on an
assertion that 'Natraj Mansion' is built on a lease hold land. this was
never a joint family property. It is for this reason that this property is not
assessed under the income tax and wealth tax of Nanji Govindji Taunk
HUF. It is asserted that land was taken by means of a registered lease
11.
deed (Ext. K/1) and four persons i.e. Minoo Rustamji Patel, Ratilal R.Taunk
(defendant no. 10), second wife Raji Bai (defendant no. 16) and Homi
Home Patel had obtained lease from M/s. TISCO Limited pursuant to an
agreement dated 1st July, 1961 (Ext. X). The terms and conditions are
incorporated in the registerd lease deed. The building Natraj Mansion was
constructed by a separate fund and separate earnings long after the
death of Nanji Govindji Taunk. Ranchhod N. Taunk father of defendant no.
10 Ratilal R. Taunk had disassociated himself from the family in the year
1954 and he was never associated with any of the partnership firm. The
claim of partition on behalf of these defendant-respondents is only in
respect of the properties acquired by Nanji Govindji Taunk himself before
his death. The further contention of Mr. Manjul Prasad that the plaintiff
did not controvert the assertions of defendant nos. 10 and 16 nor
disputed any document, therefore, it amounts to implied admission.
Defendant No. 10 Ratilal R. Taunk appeared as a witness and was
examined as P.W. 8 and the plaintiff also does not dispute the claim of
respondents no. 10 and 16.
22. A number of exhibits have been produced to substantiate the
investment by Ranchhod N. Taunk and also that none of the parties to
the suit have claimed any right or interest in Property No. VI. The
judgment of the trial court in respect of property no. VI is hereby
confirmed. The plaintiff has not been able to substantiate that Natraj
Mansion is qua from the nucleus of the joint Hindu family and so far the
claim of the plaintiff is rejected in respect of Property No. VI.
23. The plaintiff has asserted in respect of Item No. XIII which is a land
measuring 65ft x 45ft situated at Faldih, Raipur (M.P.). In paragraph 27-A
of the plaint, it is pleaded that the property was purchased while in
jointness and this land was purchased in the name of Dilip N. Taunk son
of Nana Lal Taunk-defendant no. 2 and the plaintiff has got 1/7th share .
Defendant No. 2 filed additional written statement stating that the
property was acquired in the name of Dilip N. Taunk who is not a party to
the suit and it was also purchased from the individual separate fund. and
it has no concern whatsoever with the joint family property. The findings
recorded by the trial court that since he is not impleaded as a party,
therefore, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be considered and it was
rejected. I am in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court,
so far Item No. XIII is concerned and it does not require any
reconsideration. Hence I confirm the judgment and decree in respect of
Item No. XIII.
24. Item No. IV (Nalanda Hotel) situate at S.B. Shop Area, Bistupur in
12.
the town of Jamshedpur is claimed by defendant no. 3 (Hansraj N. Taunk).
Defendant No. 3 has claimed Item No. IV to be his exclusive property
after reconstitution of the firm Shyamji N. Taunk. The argument on behalf
of the appellant is that Item No. IV has been admittedly acquired by the
common ancestor Nanji Govindji Taunk from his own funds in the name of
his son Shyamji N. Taunk (defendant no. 4). Defendant No. 4 has not
appeared as a witness in support of his case. M/s. Nalanda Hotel, a
registered partnership firm was constituted only on 30.10.1973 by Ext. N.
Later on Shyamji N. Taunk (defendant no. 4) by a registered sale deed
dated 12.3.1974 (Ext. J) sold the said property in favour of M/s. Nalanda
Hotel. It was admitted by D.W. 1 in para 33 that Item No. IV, M/s. Nalanda
Hotel belonged to the joint family. The defendants have claimed that by
virtue of reconstitution of partnership deed from time to time, one or
other partners retired and ultimately Item No. IV (Nalanda Hotel)
remained the exclusive business of defendant no. 3.
25. The learned court below has recorded its findings on the basis of
Exts. 9 and 9/A, which are Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns for the
assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and the conclusion in the
judgment is that Item No. IV was not mentioned as property belonging to
HUF in the said document. Therefore, this goes to prove that the partition
cannot be claimed in respect of Item No. IV.
26. Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate has also submitted that the plaintiff never
challenged the transfer (Ext. J) and reconstitution of the firm "Nalanda
Hotel" (Ext. N/1 dated 1st April, 1979) and the validity of the transfer
was, in fact, not disputed but the plaintiff has only claimed in the year
1990 that the property belongs to undivided joint family property. This
claim has been staked after a lapse of 17 years, whereas, limitation
under article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1063 is only for three years and,
therefore, the claim in respect of Item No. IV of Schedule B is barred by
limitation.
27. The emphatic submission by Mr. P.K. Prasad is that transfer by co-
parcerner (defendant no.4-Shyamji N. Taunk), without the consent of the
other coparceners is void. In the case of Thamma Venkata Subbamma vs.
Thamma Rattamma and others [1987 (3) SCC 294], the Apex Court ruled
that if in a joint Hindu family, one brother and brother's sons and
daughters constitute a HUF, a gift of the donner of undivided coparcenary
interest to his brother amounts to relinquishment or renuniciation of his
share in favour of other coparceners and the Apex Court held that such a
relinquishment to be valid. In that judgment, Article 264 from Mulla's
Hindu Law, fifteenth edition at page 357, it was clearly stated that such
13.
renunciation is not invalid even if certain conditions are laid down. The
only embargo is renunciation or relinquishment must of course be
genuine. Therefore, assuming the argument of Mr. P.K. Prasad to be
correct that these transfers were only for the income tax purposes then
the onus was on the plaintiff himself to establish that it was not genuine.
In the circumstances, this decision is of no help to the plaintiff.
28. The assertion of the plaintiff's counsel regarding the question of
limitation is also negated as in a partition suit, there is no question that a
claim of share in a HUF can be said to be either barred by limitation or for
want of any declaration within the limitation period. The findings by the
trial court regarding Item No. IV is recorded in paragraphs 38 to 48 of the
judgment. Various documents have been taken into consideration and
also the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant in paragraphs 7, 8,
9, 15 and 16. I have also gone through the specific assertion on behalf of
the plaintiff and also schedule of the plaint. Paragraph 30 which is the
relief clause clearly mentions house property. A separate written
statement was submitted by D.W. 3-Hansraj N. Taunk. The pleading on
behalf of the defendant is specific that the sale deed was executed in the
year 1974. I have also specifically examined the statement of P.W. 1. The
claim of the plaintiff that there will be a presumption of jointness cannot
be accepted specially since the plaintiff has already been paid the
amount of Rs. 1,07,784. 85 Paise by cheque No. 110585 dated 31.7.1980
of Union Bank of India. The plaint is absolutely silent regarding this
payment though the plaintiff has tried to negate these aspects in his
statement. I have perused the findings of the trial court and there is no
reason for disagreeing with the said findings. It is also admitted by the
plaintiff that initially he was a partner in the firm having 11 per cent
share and the payment by cheque has been accepted by the court below
and, therefore, I do not find any reason to set aside the said finding.
29. Argument of Mr. P.K. Prasad regarding Item No. IV Nalanda Hotel
was purchased by Nanji Govindji Taunk, the common ancestor, from his
own funds in the name of his son Shyamji N. Taunk. Nanji Govindji Taunk
died on 25.3.1955. On his death, the said property will devolve upon all
his seven sons. Shyamji N. Taunk-defendant no. 4, along with his six
brothers will have 1/7th share each. Transfer by a Karta binds all the
coparceners only if the transfer is for a legal necessity. There is no
pleading of legal necessity in the written statement of defendants no. 1,2
and 4 and written statement of defendant no. 3. Mulla's Hindu Law clearly
provides that the onus of proving legal necessity lies upon the purchaser.
In the absence of a legal necessity, the sale deed (Ext. J) dated
14.
12.3.1974 will therefore, be void. Neither the vendor Shyamji N. Taunk,
defendant no. 4 nor the subsequent claimant Hansraj N Taunk, defendant
no. 3 have appeared as a witness in support of the sale transaction to
support its validity of the sale evidenced by Ext. J dated 12.3.1974.
30. The amount of Rs. 1,07,748.85 Paise, alleged to have been paid,
was only a book transfer and the same amount was returned by the
plaintiff Govardhandas Nanji Taunk which is proved by Exts. 6 and 7
which shows that a total sum of Rs. 1, 54, 408.66 Paise which includes
the book value transfer in respect of Item No. IV. At any rate, admittedly
Item No. IV was acquired by common ancestor Nanji Govindji Taunk and ,
therefore, at best his son Shyamji N. Taunk will have 1/7th share. Sale
(Ext. J) cannot be valid beyond 1/7th share of defendant no. 4. Rest
brothers will accordingly inherit 1/7th share each. This assertion on
behalf of the plaintiff is far fetched. The argument on the question of
'Legal necessity' amounts to carving out an altogether new case. The
plaintiff instituted the suit on the ground that all the properties of the
Taunk family is purchased by a Hindu Joint Family nucleus and, therefore,
each son has equal share. This is disputed by the brothers on the ground
that separate business commenced in the different name and style and
from the independent sources. The partners are also different, thus the
plaintiff is bound to prove its plaint assertion and not to derive arguments
from the defendants' defence.
31. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 3 has stressed that
Nanji Govindji Taunk died on 25.3.1953 and also that he had purchased
Item No. IV in the name of Shyamji N. Taunk. The plaintiff was a partner
of Nalanda Hotel having 11% share consisting of eight partners, each one
of them having equal share only. Nitin L. Taunk had 12% share in the said
partnership constituted on 30.10.1973 (Ext. N). It is also admitted fact
that Shyamji Nanji Taunk Son of Late Nanji Govindji Taunk sold and
transferred to M/s. Nalanda Hotel for a valuable consideration. The
plaintiff, by means of a cheque, has received his entire share of the said
firm and since then he is not concerned whatsoever in Item No. IV of
Schedule B of the plaint. He has also stressed on the return of income tax
and wealth tax where only Nanji Govindji Taunk (P.W. 1) shown as Hindu
undivided family. Exts. 9 and 9/A are admitted documents and, therefore,
the plaintiff cannot challenge the finding of the trial court in the instant
appeal. The decisions cited by the appellants have no application
whatsoever. In case there is a disputed title, which cannot be decided in
partition suit and, therefore, the judgment of the trial court that Item No.
IV is not from nucleus of HUF is correct and calls for no interference.
15.
32. The submission on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of Item No. VIII,
Plot No. TMG 10 and 11 measuring 10977 sq. ft. (Navyug Udyog).
According to the plaintiff, this property was also acquired by the common
ancestor Nanji Govindji Taunk in the name of Shyamji N. Taunk-defendant
no. 4 in the year 1948. In the written statement of defendants no. 1, 2
and 4 at paragraph 30, the defendants have contended that this property
was acquired by Shyamji N. Taunk and made construction thereon.
33. The submission on behalf of the plaintiff is that in a suit for
partition, possession of one co-sharer is possession of another co-sharer.
There is no case of exclusion or ouster pleaded by the defendants. There
is no case of previous partition. As such even if defendant no. 4 is in
possession, in law, it amounts to possession of all the co-sharers. In item
No. VIII, defendant no.2-D.W. 2 Nanalal N. Taunk is a defendant where he
claims to carry on business of Navyug Udyog. Exts. E/1 to E/4 shows
payment of rent by Navyug Udyog to Shyamji N. Taunk-defendant no. 4.
These exhibits are from May, 1990 to December, 1990 which is evident
that when dispute amongst the parties was going on since March, 1979;
and ultimately suit was filed on 30.10.1990 after giving a legal notice.
Legal notice had already been given on 12.9.1984 (Ext. 1). Therefore,
Exts. E/1 to E/4 were totally unreliable and appears to have been created.
Ext. 9 (Income Tax Return for the Assessment year 1982-83) and Ext. 9/A
(Wealth Tax Return for the Assessment year 1981-82) have been filed by
Nanji Govindji Taunk (HUF). Therefore, these documents show that HUF
continued to exist all throughout. The plaintiff (P.W. 1) as well as
defendant no. 2(D.W. 1) have admitted that the firms were constituted
and reconstituted right from 1954 onward only for the purposes of tax.
This contention on behalf of the plaintiff is a bald assertion and cannot be
accepted on the face of it.
34. So far as Item Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are concerned, the plaintiff
has pleaded in para 9 of the plaint that these properties were acquired
out of the joint property funds/property of Nanji Govindji Taunk and the
HUF of Nanji Govindji Taunk is still existing.
35. Further submission on behalf of the plaintiff is that on perusal of
Ext. K, it appears that the parties were carrying on joint family business
in the name and style of M/s. Nanji Govindji & Sons, Govardhan Brothers
and Taunk Brothers. These three family businesses were converted into
partnership by Ext/ K with effect from 3.11.1954. Clause 1 of Ext. K takes
within its sweep, the different businesses of contract business, jewelery
business, hardware business, ready made garments business, radio
business etc. Clause 9 prohibits any partner from transferring any
16.
property or any interest of any partner. Thus by Ext. K, the joint family
business i.e. M/s. Nanji Govindji & Sons, Govardhan Brothers and Taunk
Brothers got converted into partnerships which stand admitted by D.W. 1,
Nandlal N. Taunk in para-64. This partnership continued to exist and was
dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 31.10. 1978 (Ext. C). This Ext. C
shows that on 31.10.10978, the three joint family businesses which had
been converted into partnership by Ext. K was again agreed to be
divided between the partners. At the relevant time, M/s. Nanji Govindji &
Sons was allotted to defendant no.4-Shyamji N. Taunk and Girish N.
Taunk son of Lakshaman N. Taunk. similarly M/s. Taunk Brothers was
allotted to 4th and 5th partners i.e. Balram N Taunk-defendant no. 1 and
Nanalal N. Taunk-defendant no. 2 whereas M/s. Taunk Trading Company
was allotted to 3rd and 6th partners i.e. Govardhandas N. Taunk, the
plaintiff and Hansraj N. Taunk, defendant no. 3. In Ext. C it has been
provided that with effect from 1.11.1978 i.e. (from the very next day),
these new partnerships as per allotment in Ext. C shall come into
existence. Accordingly, on 1.11.1978, Ext. D was executed by all the six
parties agreeing to bifurcate their joint family businesses which was
converted into partnership businesses by Ext. K. Immediately on the
same day, i.e. on 1.1.1978, three more agreements were executed by the
parties as per the allotment which has been marked as Ext. D (with
respect to M/s. Nanji Govindji & Sons); Ext. D/1 (with respect to M/s.
Taunk Brothers) and Ext. D/2 (with respect to M/s. Taunk Trading Co.) and
Ext. D/3 (with respect to Nanji Govindji & sons).
36. Thus execution of the deed of dissolution on 31.10.1978 (Ext. C)
and execution of four agreements (Ext. D series) on the very next day i.e.
1.11.1978 itself goes to establish that these were only meant for creation
of different partnership firms for the purposes of avoiding tax liability and
for increasing the income of the business which has been admitted in
para 64 by D.W. 1. Ext. F dated 14.3.1976 whereby agricultural land of
Asanbani were transferred to defendant no. 4 and Ext. F/1 dated
14.3.1976 and Item No. X-Khas Mahal Plot No. 65 belonging to the firm
were transferred to the plaintiff-appellant. All these documents are
unregistered and have been created only for avoiding liability of tax so as
to increase the income of the family. Thus all the properties i.e. Item Nos.
VI to XIII having been acquired during continuance of the joint family
business by Ext. K in the shape of partnership will definitely be joint
family properties and will be available for partition.
37. The argument and contention on behalf of the plaintiff in nut shell
is that there is a presumption in a Hindu family that property is joint and
17.
a sufficient nucleus for acquisition of the property is established. Further
submission is that the evidence of the witnesses proceed on an
assumption that common ancestor Nanji Govindji Taunk had a flourishing
business of his own and was able to constitute a nucleus which led to
acquisition of a number of properties and the partnership firm claimed by
the defendants to be exclusive of the respective partners cannot be
accepted for the reason that these firms were constituted from the
nucleus of the joint family; there is no proof about separate and exclusive
earning of the respective partners and, according to paragraph 233 of
Mulla's Hindu Law, Eighteenth Edition, the onus is on the person to
establish that certain property is not from joint nucleus, who claims that
the property was acquired from the personal earnings. Paragraph 233 of
Mulla's Hindu Law Eighteenth edition at page 232 is quoted below:-
"233. PRESUMPTION AS TO COPARCENARY AND SELF- ACQUIRED PROPERTY
(1) Presumption that a joint family continues joint.__Generally speaking, the normal state of every Hindu family is joint. Presumably every such family is joint in food, worship and estate. In the absence of proof of division, such is the legal presumption. In other words, given a joint Hindu family, the presumption is, until the contrary is proved, the family continues joint. The presumption of union is the greatest in the case of father and sons."
38. For want of necessary proof, the statement of the witnesses cannot
be accepted. Great emphasis is on the question of legal necessity; or in
absence of any legal necessity contended by the defendants, sale by
Karta, in the instant case, is void and thus was unable to discharge the
onus of substantiating that the sale was made for a legal necessity.
Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions viz., AIR 1981
Allahabad 335; AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 189;AIR 1954 SC 379; AIR
1965 SC 289; AIR 1969 SC 1076.
39. On the basis of a decision of the Apex Court in Srinivas Krishnarao
Kango vs. Narayan Devji Kango and other (AIR 1954 SC 379), learned
counsel has submitted that proof of existence of a joint family though
does not lead to presumption that property held by any member of the
family is joint and the burden rests upon any one asserting, but when it is
established that the family possessed some joint property from its nature
and a relative value may have formed a nucleus from which the property
in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts on the party
alleging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was
acquired without the aid of the joint family property. While ruling this,
reliance was placed on a decision of the Privy Council in Appalaswami vs.
18.
Suryanarayanamurti and others (AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 189).
Reliance has also been placed in the case of K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer vs.
K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer and others (AIR 1965 SC 289). Emphasis is on the
proposition by the Apex Court that the legal position is well settled that if,
in fact, on the date of acquisition of the property, the joint family has
sufficient nucleus for acquiring the property in the name of any member
of the joint family should be presumed to be acquired out of the family
funds and, therefore, to form part of the HUF unless a contrary is shown.
Another decision cited by Mr. P.K. Prasad is Mudigowda vs. Ramchandra
(AIR 1969 SC 1976). Paragraph 5 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
" It is now well established that an agreement between all the coparceners is not essential to the disruption of the joint family status, but a definite and unambiguous indication of intention by one member to separate himself from the family and to enjoy his share in severalty will amount in law to a division of status. It is immaterial in such a case whether the other members assent or not. Once the decision is unequivocally expressed, and clearly intimated to his co-sharers, the right of the coparcener to obtain and possess the share to which he admittedly is entitled, is unimpeachable.
If, however, the expression of intention is a mere pretence or a sham, there is in the eye of law no separation in the joint family status".
40. The decision in the case of Appalaswami (Supra), it is categorically
held that the principle laid down is proof of existence of a joint family
does not lead to the presumption that the property held by any member
of the family is joint; the burden rests upon any one asserting that any
item of property is joint to establish this fact, but where it is established
that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and
relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in
question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging
self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired
with the aid of the joint family property.
41. Thus the assertion on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant on the basis
of the aforesaid decisions as well as during course of argument, the
repeated emphasis of the learned counsel that there was no partition
whatsoever and all the properties including the business are an outcome
of joint family nucleus. There is sufficient proof of the fact that the father
of the plaintiff had sufficient means to acquire the property and the
creation of the partnership firm are from the joint nucleus and, therefore,
the claim of the defendants should not be accepted. Thus the judgment
of the trial court is repeatedly criticised.
42. Once again the arguments are controverted by Mr. L.K. Lal,
appearing on behalf of defendants no. 1, 2 and 4 i.e. the substituted heirs
of respondent no. 1 and substituted heirs of respondent no. 4 and
respondent no.2 as well. Accepting the finding of the court below
19.
regarding Property Nos. I, II, III and V being joint and liable for partition,
he has raised his objection in respect of Property Nos. VII, VIII, IX, X, XI
and XII. These properties were acquired by the firm Nanji Govindji & Sons
and it is not a joint family business. Section 14 of the Partnership Act
provides that the property of the firm is subject to a contract between the
partners which includes all property, right and interest, originally brought
into the stock of the firm or acquired by purchase or otherwise by or for
the firm or for the purpose in course of business of the firm. In case, there
is any objection that the property was not purchased by the firm Nanji
Govindji & Sons, it can only be decided in a separate proceedings and
cannot be a subject matter of a partition suit. His submission in respect of
Item No. VIII purchased in the name of defendant no. 4 is that it was
defendant no. 4 alone who managed the property. It can only be said that
till Nanji Govindji Taunk was alive, the properties purchased by him can
be said to be joint but subsequent to his death, any assertion on the part
of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. He has placed paragraph 228 of
Mulla's Hindu Law sixteenth Edition at page 253 which is quoted below:--
"228. Property jointly acquired.--(1) Where property has been acquired in business by persons constituting a joint Hindu family by their joint labour, the question arises whether the property so acquired is joint family property, or whether it is merely the joint property of the joint acquirers, or whether it is ordinary partnership property. If it is a joint family property, the male issue of the acquirers take an interest in it by birth. If it is the joint property of the acquirers, it will pass by survivorship, but the sale issue of the acquirers do not take interest in it by birth. If it is partnership property, it is governed by the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, so that the share of each of; the joint acquirers will pass on his death to his heirs, andk not by survivorship."
43. The assertion in the plaint in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are
regarding acquisition from the joint family nucleus. This is replied and
controverted in the written statement that only those properties which
were acquired during the life time of the father are joint and nothing
beyond it. Learned counsel has pointed out that assertion of paragraph 9
of the plaint that the property was purchased from the joint family
nucleus but the evidence is absolutely contrary to it and paragraphs 12,
15 and 16 of the statement of the plaintiff is that the firm acquired the
property and was constituted in the year 1958. The common ancestor
admittedly died in the year 1955 and also retired from the business in the
year 1944. Thus the joint family property has got nothing to do with the
acquisition by the firm Nanji Govindji & Sons. The rival contention
between the defendants no. 2 and 4 vis-a-vis respondents no. 5 to 9
regarding creation of the partnership of Item No. VII which was purchased
by Nanji Govindji & Sons. The plaintiff has surrendered his appeal
regarding Item No. VII which has hotly been objected on behalf of
respondents no. 5 to 9.
20.
44. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, appearing on behalf of these respondents, have
tried to controvert the arguments regarding this property. During the
course of the proceedings, injunction order was passed restraining
respondent no. 1 or any other party from alienating this property or any
other subject matter of the suit during the pendency of the appeal. In
these circumstances, the objection has been raised by Mr. Indrajit Sinha
and Mr. Rohit Roy , Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents no. 5 to
9 that the appellant has given up his claim in respect of Property No. VII
only with a view to circumvent the interim order granted on 5.5.2005.
The argument on behalf of the plaintiff, giving up his claim and assertions
of Mr. L. K. Lal in respect of respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 that it is his
exclusive property and the arguments on behalf of respondents no. 5 to 9
relating to the said property is apparently regarding the question that
whether the conclusion arrived at by the trial court regarding exclusive
ownership of respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 in exclusion of the other
defendants and the plaintiff is beyond the pleadings and the relief
claimed in the instant suit; the controversy raised at the behest of
respondents no. 5 to 9 can only be examined within the ambit of Order
XLI Rule 33 CPC by this Court. The case of the plaintiff as well as the
defendants is that initially the properties shown as Item Nos. VII, VIII, IX,
X, XI and XII were in the name of Nanji Govindji & Sons. The trial court
dismissed the suit in respect of the aforesaid properties. The trial court
has recorded its finding against the plaintiff but has gone further and
recorded finding allocating shares and constituents of the partnership
firm amongst the defendants and also vis-a-vis respective members of
the family.
These findings are recorded on the basis of various deed of
partnership firms. Thee are dissolution deeds, deeds of reconstitution etc.
The objection of Mr. Indrajit Sinha appears to be well founded on the
ground that these are unregistered deed and also without the consent of
all the partners. Section 19 (2) (g) of the Partnership Act placesa
statutory bar.
Apparently there was no such relief claimed in the suit for allocating
the different shares in the partnership firm and also holding as to who are
the partners of which firm and what is the basis or evidence to come to
the said conclusion. In fact, the suit is preferred claiming that all the
properties including his business and partnership firm are from the joint
family nucleus and, therefore, they continued to be a joint family property
and the relief claimed is for partition and allocating 1/7th share to each of
the sons of Late Nanji Govindji Taunk. It is also to be noticed that
21.
defendants no. 5 to 9 did not contest the suit nor file any written
statement. The counter claim preferred in this appeal stands rejected
and, therefore, the arguments available to respondents no. 5 and 9 is
very limited but nothing constrains this Court to go into the questions of
fact, pleadings, relief claimed and appraise the evidence on record. No
doubt, running of several firms does not necessarily imply separation and
no such inference can be drawn merely because there are a number of
business under different names in existence or the claim that
partnership firms were formed for better handing business or to keep it
manageable or for various other reasons, it is well within the scope of the
first appellate court to examine all these aspects.
45. Mulla's on Hindu Law 16th Edition states in para 222:-
"222. Incidents of separate or self-acquired property.-- A Hindu, even if he be joint, may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. No other member of the coparcenary, not even his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. He may sell it (s), or he may make a gift of it, or bequeath it by will, to any person he likes (t). It is not liable to partition (u), and, on his death intestate, it passes by succession to his heirs, and not by survivorship to the surviving coparceners (v)."
Therefore, it is settled law that there is no presumption that a
family, because it is joint, possess joint property. When in a suit for
partition a party claims that any particular item is joint family property,
the burden of proving it rest on the shoulders of the person asserting it.
46. The properties mentioned Item Nos. VII, IX, X, XI and XII are ,
therefore, not required to be decided separately. The plaintiff's emphatic
assertion is that the burden rests on the defendants to substantiate that
the firms were from the own source of partners lies on the shoulder of the
defendants since the plaintiff has pleaded that Nanji Govindji Taunk had a
successful business from which several properties were purchased which
are admittedly joint today and the trial court has accepted this contention
without any objection. The firms constitute amongst the heirs of Late
Nanji Govindji Taunk have not shown that the firms were constituted by
their separate earning. The only inference that can be draw is that the
property remained joint. The court below has categorically recorded its
findings that certain properties such as Item Nos. I, II, III and V are joint
purchased by Nanji Govindji Taunk. He had a lucrative business but so far
the other properties are concerned, they were much after their father
retired from his business. Thus this alone cannot prove and substantiate
the appellant's claim that business and firms constituted much after his
retirement was also from joint family. I do not agree with the submission
on behalf of the plaintiff appellant.
47. I have carefully scrutinised the evidences and the plaint. The
22.
plaintiff in paragraph 30 has prayed for a preliminary decree for 1/7th
share in the properties described in Schedule B. Thereafter the
consequential relief of appointment of survey knowing pleader
commissioner to demarcate the share and for preparation of final decree.
Schedule B mentions as many as XIII properties. Property No. I relates to
house property situate on lease Holding No. 70, measuring 16,684 sq. ft.
in Contractors' Area, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum
(East); Item No. II All that house properties situate on Lease Holding No.
117, area measuring 16,566 sq. ft. in Contractors' area, P.S. Bistupur,
Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East) ; Item No. III. All that house
properties on Lease No. 105, measuring 2,309 sq. ft. in Contractors' area,
P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East); Item No. IV:
All that house properties situate (Nalanda Hotel) on Lease 3-SB Shop,
measuring 3,964 sq. ft. in Main Road, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur,
District Singhbhum (East); Item No V: All that House Properties situate at
Holding No. Nil, Lease No. 6-SB Shop, measuring 4,182 sq. ft. in P.S.
Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East; Item No. VI: Half of
all that house properties (Natraj Building) situate on Holding No. Nil,
Lease No. A, B, measuring 31,000 sq. ft. in P.S. Bistupur, Town
Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East; Item No. VII: All that House
Properties situate (one Godown on "N" Road, West, Near Khalsa Club)
measuring 9596 sq. ft. in P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District
Singhbhum (East); Item No. VIII: All that house properties situate on Plot
No. TMG 10 & 11, measuring 10,977 sq. ft. in P.S. Bistupur, Town
Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East; Item No. IX. All that house
properties situate in 'N' Town, Godown at Northern Town, measuring
14,566 sq. ft. in P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East;
Item No. XI. All that piece and parcel of lands measuring a total area of
20.68 Acres situate in Mouza Asanboni, P.S. Chandil, District Singhbhum
(W); Item No. XII. All that piece and parcel of land measuring a total area
of 1.02 Acres in Mouza Paridih, P.S. Mango, District Singhbhum (East);
Item No. XIII. All that piece and parcel of land measuring 65" x45"
together with the building structures standing thereon bearing Khesra No.
258 at Faladih, District Raipur valued at Rs. 70,000/-.
48. It is thus evident that the relief claimed in suit is only to the house
property even if the amendment on 12.5.1993, paragraph 9 was
amended but not the relief clause. It is thus clear that no relief or claim
regarding the partnership firm which was admittedly constituted after the
common ancestor retired from the family business is pleaded. It is
admitted by the plaintiff in his statement that Nanji Govindji Taunk retired
23.
from the business in the year 1944. Thereafter the properties acquired by
him during his life time continued to be joint family property but
thereafter the firm Nanji Govindji & Sons was constituted at a very late
stage and thus no presumption can be drawn whether these business
were commenced from the joint family nucleus.
49. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, it is to be tested
that whether Property Nos. VII to XII, which are in fact not house
properties but are partnership business can be said to be joint Hindu
family property. The admitted position is that the father of the original
plaintiff acquired certain movable and immovable properties and
engaged in several construction and Hardwares business. The firms Nanji
Govindji & Sons was a firm floated constituting six brothers as partners,
seventh son Ranchhod N. Taunk had separated during the life time of his
father. Gobardhan Brothers and Taunk Brothers were also constituted by
six partners. Since certain difference arose in the year 1954, the family
business carried on in the name of three firms was partitioned and a deed
was executed on 29.10.1954. The firm Nanji Govindji & Sons was a
partnership firms under the provision of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and
was constituted with the aid of separate capital. The terms and conditions
are duly recorded in the deed marked as Ext. K which is dated 3.11.1954.
It is thus clear that these firms could not be the subject matter of the
partition suit since it is not a joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff has
neither pleaded nor proved by evidence that the income of the firm
blended with joint Hindu family property. On the contrary, prior to the
institution of the suit, a notice was given by the defendants to the
plaintiff for partition of joint family property which is marked as Exts. 1, 1/
a, 1/b, and 1/c and asked for partition in the immovable property. These
properties marked as item nos. I. II, III and V, this is not disputed by any
of the parties to the suit or this appeal.
I uphold and confirm the judgment of the trial court. The remaining
properties other than shown as Item Nos. I, II, III and V are not joint family
property and not acquired from HUF funds. The partners/sons of Nandji
Govindji Taunk acquired from their independent income. Once it is
concluded that there was a disruption of joint family, then merely saying
that HUF continues is not sufficient. Admittedly one brother Ranchhod N.
Taunk separated long back and has his independent earning, the
conclusion is definitely that the joint family disintegrated.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani vs.
Narayanan [1980 Suppl SCC 298 (Para 28)] wherein it has been held as
under:
24.
"28. Once disruption of joint family status takes place as Lord Westbury puts it in Appovier's case, it covers both a division of right and vision of property. If a document clearly shows the division of rights and status its legal construction and effect cannot be altered by evidence of subsequent conduct of parties."
50. In view of what has been stated above and also on a close perusal
of the evidence and the pleadings, the submission of Mr. P.K. Prasad that
besides the properties number shown as Item Nos, I, II, III and V held to
be acquisition of a joint Hindu family, it cannot be accepted that the
remaining properties are also joint family acquisition. Admittedly, there is
no dispute regarding Property Nos. VI and XIII. If there is no separation,
Ranchhod N. Taunk should also have constituted as member of the family
business commenced at a later date. The trial court khas recorded a
finding that Property No. VI Natraj Mansion shown in schedule B in the
relief clause of the plaint is exclusive property of Ranchhod N. Taunk
and his heirs. Similarly the property shown at Item No. 13 situate at
Raipur (M.P.) belongs to Dilip N. Taunk who was not even arrayed as
party to the suit and all the remaining parties to the suit and appeal have
not objected to the said assertion and, therefore, I am in complete
agreement with the said finding.
51. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that there is a
presumption of property being joint and acquired from a Hindu joint
family nucleus has not been established and proved by the appellant,
hence not sustainable. The firm Nanji Govindji & Sons was constituted
consisting of six partners. The two other firms, namely, Govardhan
Brothers and Taunk Brothers were also constituted and the obvious
conclusion is that the capital was partitioned and a deed of partition was
executed on29.10.1954 wherein it was also agreed that immovable
properties by Nanji Govindji Taunk would be left joint. Business in the
name and style of Nanji Govindji Taunk has two branches, namely
Govardhan Brothers and Taunk Brothers. The firm Nanji Govindji & Sons
was established under the provision of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with
the aid of divided and separated capital. The terms and conditions of the
partnership were duly recorded in an Indenture of partnership dated
3.11.1954 marked as Ext. K; perusal of the same establishes that on and
from 29th October, 1954, partnership was separated from the joint Hindu
family and, therefore, any acquisition or profit made by the firm was
exclusive property of the firm and the disposal thereof would strictly have
to be in terms of sections 14 and 15 of the Partnership Act.
52. The findings of the trial court regarding respective shares and
contract in the partnership firms, its constitution and reconstitution etc.,
25
was neither pleaded in the plaint nor relief was claimed, but the plaintiff
has asked for 1/7th share in each of the property. Therefore, in my view,
the findings arrived at by the trial court deciding and allocating the
different partnership firm to the respective defendants is a finding which
is beyond the pleadings and the relief claimed in the plaint. The suit was
by the plaintiff claiming 1/7th share in all the properties. In my view, no
decree could have been passed in respect of the business which are
admittedly partnership business and cannot be termed to be the H.U.F.
properties as claimed in the relief clause. Thus, in my view, the findings
of the court below regarding the remaining properties cannot be upheld.
The respective shares and the claim in the partnership firm can be
contested in a separate suit in accordance with the Partnership Act but
not in the appeal. The validity of certain partnership deeds which are
unregistered and also challenged by Mr. Indrajit Sinha cannot be
adjudicated in this appeal as it is not the relief claimed in the instant suit.
The findings recorded by the trial court is beyond the pleading, any
evidence read by the trial court is not within the frame of the pleadings
of the suit and cannot be taken into consideration. Hence this part of the
judgment is set at naught. However, no findings regarding share can be
assessed in this appeal. The parties shall continue with the present
constitution of the firms till the respective claims are decided in a suit
under the Partnership Act, 1932.
53. In these circumstances, it is, therefore, concluded that:
(i) The decision of the court below regarding property nos.
I, II, III and V being joint and acquired by common ancestor in
that capacity is upheld and each of the sons of Nanji
Govindji Taunk are entitled for 1/7th share.
(ii) Item No. VI is an exclusive property of Late Ranchhod
N. Taunk and at present is the exclusive property of
respondent nos. 10 and 16 and no other family member has
a share in it.
(iii) Property No. XIII is also not partiable and does not
constitute Hindu Undivided Family Property.
(iv) The plaintiff has not been able to substantiate that the
partnership business shown in Schedule B are acquisition of
HUF nucleus and, therefore, he has also a share in the said
property and the suit and appeal is, therefore, dismissed.