Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- These appeals arise from a partition suit between two brothers. The plaintiff is the elder brother and the 1st defendant is his younger brother. The second defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of Dr. Sudarshan Pandit, a medical practitioner who practised at Indore. Dr. Pandit had extensive practice. He died on April 6, 1949 leaving behind him extensive properties. His wife had died in 1918. Dr. Pandit had three daughters. We are not concerned with them in this case. The contest is mainly between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. There is also a dispute as regards the ownership of a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant.

2. The contention of the 1st defendant was that the plaintiff had separated himself from the rest of the family as far back as 1936 and therefore he is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. Further he took the plea that deposits of Rs. 41,000/- in the Bank of Indore and Rs. 50,000/- in Binod Mills which stood in the name of Dr. Pandit till about the third week of March, 1949 had been gifted to him. According to him Dr. Pandit gifted the four deposits totalling Rs. 41,000/- in the Bank of Indore on March 25,1949 and the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in the Binod Mills on March 30, 1949. The deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant was claimed by the second defendant as her exclusive property. She claimed that amount as a gift from her father-in-law.

3. The properties with which we are concerned in this suit have been held to be the self-acquired properties of Dr. Pandit. That finding was not questioned before us.

4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff s suit on the sole ground that he had separated himself from his father as far back as 1936 whereas the 1st defendant continued to be joint with his father. It held that as he was separate from his father the plaintiff had no right in the properties left behind by Dr. Pandit. In appeal the High Court substantially reversed the decree of the trial court. The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had separated himself from the family. It also came to the conclusion that the deposits of Rs. 91,000/- referred to earlier are the properties of the joint family and hence divisible. But it upheld the claim of the 1st defendant in respect of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which had been made over to him by his father on March 21, 1949. In repect of the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the second defendant, the High Court came to the conclusion that it was her exclusive property. The 1st defendant has appealed against the High Court s decree to the extent it went against him and the plaintiff has appealed against the finding of the High Court that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- given to the lst defendant on March 21, 1949 is his exclusive property. He also challenged the finding of the High Court that the deposit of Rupees 50,000/- in the name of the second defendant is her exclusive property. Both the appeals were brought on the strength of the certificates issued by the High Court.

5. Dr. Pandit originally hailed from Jaora, an Indian state. He practised at Indore. He had extensive practice in Central India. He lost his wife in 1918 leaving behind her three daughters and two sons. The eldest son, the plaintiff in this case was hardly 7 years old when his mother died and the younger son was three years old. Dr. Pandit appears to have been extremely anxious that his eldest son should step into his shoes and should become an eminent medical practitioner. In 1927, he took the plaintiff, when he was hardly 16 years old to England and put him to school. He gave him liberal allowance in the initial stages. It appears from the record that he was sending him annually about lb. 300. Unfortunately the plaintiff did not make much progress in his studies. Dr. Pandit was disappointed.