IMPORTANT POINT
There is no flaw in the conclusion drawn by High Court on the point that the property in question was raised and developed by the Joint efforts of Purandas and his sons and therefore it was joint family property, amenable for partition among the father and the sons etc.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent (herein) and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit for partition.

2. It appears that one Purandas had established his business in Hyderabad after having shifted there from Burhanpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The business was being carried on under the name & style of Purandas Ranchhoddas & Sons. It appears that he had different businesses mainly perfume business in two places in Hyderabad. He had four sons, namely, Ranchhoddas, Dwarkadas, Motilal, Babulal and a daughter Yoga Bai. Purandas died in the year 1962. Ranchhoddas was eldest son. That being the position, Ranchhoddas continued to look after the business. Dwarkadas died in the year 1966. His wife, Purna Bai and sons Daya Bhai and Raj Kumar filed a suit for partition of the properties as joint family property impleading Ranchhoddas as the Defendant No.1 and his sons as Defendants 2 to 5. Sons of Motilal, namely Raman Lal and Shanti Lal, were impleaded as Defendants 7 and 8 and Yoga Bai, daughter of Purandas was impleaded as Defendant No.9. The plaintiffs claimed 1/5th share in the property. The appellants (herein) filed their written statements denying the fact that there was any joint family property as claimed by the plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed the suit with a finding that Purandas had left Hyderabad and went back to Burhanpur in 1942 and before leaving he gave one shop at Secunderabad to his son Dwarkadas, the shop at Gulzar House, Hyderabad to his other three sons. By this arrangement, Purandas left no property in respect of which any partition could be made. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in the High Court has been allowed holding that plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the property. The present appeal is against the judgment of the High Court.

3. This appeal stood disposed of by order dated 2.9.1994 on the basis of a compromise except as against Respondent No. 7. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 are the plaintiffs and Respondent No.4 Motilal is son of Purandas who has died and respondents No.5 and 6 are sons of Motilal. Respondent No.7 is Yoga Bai, namely, the daughter of Purandas. She also died during the pendency of the case and her legal representatives have been brought on record. The position as it stands is that the appeal stands disposed of by means of a compromise between the parties including the plaintiff except in so far it related to Yoga Bai Respondent No. 7, who was defendant No. 7 in the suit. The appeal was ordered to continue in respect of Respondent No. 7. No one has turned up for Respondent No. 7, namely, the legal representatives of Yoga Bai. Legal Representatives of Respondent No.7 have chosen not to put in appearance though served.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the High Court while dealing with the appeal has appreciated the evidence in detail and has set aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. We see that it is within the scope of first appellate court to go into the question of fact and appraise the evidence available on record. The High Court has considered the statements of different witnesses who deposed during the proceedings of the suit as well as the documentary evidence. The High Court considered the evidence to the effect that business was orginally started by Purandas and after the birth of Ranchhodas it was shifted to Gulzar House in the name and style of Purandas Ranchhodas & Sons and that all the sons and the father Purandas were running the business together. The High Court particularly noted the fact that even according to the defendants prior to alleged division in 1942 entire business belonged to all of them and the income therefrom was enjoyed by all. Therefore, the High Court found that the question which was to be considered was as to whe