LexBHAGWAN DAYAL versus MST. REOTI DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
]'~]
SriUia s .....
N~igation Co. W.
v.
Uniun of India
Suolw HM 7.
IHI
..
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1~2)
BY CouRT : In accordance with the judgmP-nt
of the majority of the Court, the appeal fails and
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
BHAG\VAN DAYAL
l!.
MST. REOTI DEVI
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADK.lR, K. SrrBRA R•o 11nd
M. Hl:I>AYATUI.LAH, J.T.)
R<aJvd1cata-Suit in Ret•""" Court-Queation of propri-
•tary title referred lo Civil Gourt--Decru-Subsequent auit in'Cit'il
Court for declaration of title--Whether decrr£ of Revenue Court
op•rntt.< aa re• jwiiwta -Code of Citil Prowlurr, 1908 (Act V of
11108), 1. II.
!Fnd" T.aw-.Toint family-Prwimption ,... to joinl1te111-
8tparation-Re-union, proof of-lrhelh<r m•mb•r> of different
bra,.che" can acquir. prop•rly a1joinl llindufamily property.
One I. \V&S living voith his sons K and J in the village.
lie was not in affluent circurnstances.
K left the ancestral
home;
he first joined
military service and
then police
srrvice.
He gave up service and started a business with
his savings.
He brought his nephews R (husband of the
respondent) and B (appellant) at different limes and allowed
them to take part in the bminess.
At his death K left a
will
bequeathing all
his prope11ies
to his two nephews.
After the death of R, his widow,
the respondent, filed a
suit againc;c B,
the appellant in a Revenue Court under
the U.P. Tenancv Act, for a half share of the inco:ne of
•ome of the villages left by K. As a dispute aro<e as to
proprietary title the Revenue Court framed an issue there
on and referred it to the Civil Court a< required by the Act.
The Civil Court held that the respondenr had a half share in
the vilhl.ges and on the bac;is of this finding the Revenue
Court decreed the suit. Thoreafter, l~e ap~ellant filed the
present suit in a Civil Court for a declaration that he was
the absolute owner of all the properties io suit.
His case wru
that L, his sons and descen<lanrs constituted a joint f{iudu
family, that there \\'a'i never any partition in the family, that
K, R and B jointly started a business and thev joinrly acquired
.some properties during the lire time of K, some after the
death of Kand some after the death of R, that the said pro-
perties were joint family properties and chat he as the survivor
was the absolute owner of all the propertie;. Alternatively,
)
•
•
' •
-
-
3<£.C'.R.
SUPREME'OOURT: REPOR'lfS
<
ho·pleaded~hat even if· there·wa• a partition in the· family of
L, a-reunion should be· inferred ·rrom the>cond11et of K, Rand
Jl;'d'ln'ing-the llfcrime· ofK and' thereafter.
The- respondent
oo"tMdcd that the family of L was divided, that K started
the business with the aid of his-self acquisitions and purchased
properties out' ahhe iricome thereof; that after the death of K
the two brothers R and 'B'• got· his properties under his will,
than they joimly aaquired·.furthm· properties out of the focome
~ ofthe·busine111,.tluu after tlte" dcalhof R, the appellannu<-
ceeded to . the half share• of R
anG! th.at the c!ecree o£Jhe
Revenue Court operated as res judicata.
•
Held, that •the suit was not barred; by re&-judk,ataz by the
jw:lgmeat of the Revenue·. Court. . The present suit wa.uwt
within the exclU&ive jurisdiction of ,tM1 · Revenue Court and was
maintainable in the Civil Court amd as such s. 11 of the·Code
of Civil Procedure was attracted. The judgment of the Revenue
Court on. the- issue• of pr9prictaw title couJd not operate as
, reajudicata a&·the·Revenue Court \Vas: not competent to try
the subsequent suit,.
Venkatarama Rao v. Venkayya•; A. I. R. l 954•MacL 783,
approved.
Held, further, that there was a partition of the family
during the lifetime of L. Every Hindtt-. family kpresunred,to
be jqint unless the contrary fa Proved; but thi~ presumption
can be.rebu_tted by direct evidence of partition or by course of
_...,, conduct leadjng to an inference 0£ partition.
There is _no pre-
sumption that when one meinber separates fiom-the others the
latter remain united; Whether-the latter remain united or not
must be decipecl orr the facts'o~'ea~h case,
In the caoe of old
transactions When' no contemporaneoui decuments af'C1 main ..
tained and when most of the active participants 0£ the,tran•
sactions .have pa!Sed .a.way, though. the burden still remains on
the person who asserts separation, it is permissible to fill .up
gaps more readily by reasonable inferences thari inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.