JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J. :—This appeal by the plaintiffs is by a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as it stood at the relevant time. It arises out of a suit for partition filed by Ram Saran Lal and his brother Babu Ram alias Babu Lal against the sole respondent Narendra Nath, s/o Pandit Bhagwati Prasad. Both the plaintiffs are dead and the appellants are their heirs and legal representatives. Bhagwati Prasad, Ram Saran Lal and Babu Lal were the sons of Pandit Raman Lal. Raman Lal died sometime in the year 1900. According to the case of the plaintiffs their family remained joint even after the death of Raman Lal. Certain properties were ancestral left by Raman Lal and certain properties were subsequently acquired by the joint family. Bhagwati Prasad was the karta of the family until he died in the year 1922 leaving behind a widow and an infant son Narendra Nath who was only two years of age then. Plaintiffs wanted partition of the properties described in Schedule I appended to the plaint as the properties left by Raman Lal and of Schedule II properties as subsequently acquired by the joint family. The suit was instituted on 1st May, 1951. The defendant respondent contested the suit and asserted that after the death of Pandit Raman Lal the three brothers separated and partitioned the properties left by Raman Lal which consisted of a house and a shop only. Since then the branch of Bhagwati Prasad has been separate. All properties mentioned in Schedule II and a few mentioned in Schedule I appended to the plaint were acquired by Bhagwati Prasad in his own name. Thus according to the case of the respondent there was no joint family in existence and no property was available for partition.

2. The Trial Court decreed the suit and directed partition of all the suit properties. On appeal by the defendant the High Court has dismissed the suit accepting his case in toto. Hence this appeal by the heirs of the original plaintiffs.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties who took us through the relevant documents in the case. The documentary evidence clearly establishes the case of the defendant and negatives that of the plaintiffs. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court on the basis of the said documents. The documents relied upon by the plaintiffs did not prove their case at all. It is not necessary for us to repeat all that has been said by the High Court in its judgment. We shall, however, briefly refer to some pieces of documentary evidence relied on by either side.

4. Ext, A-6 is a copy of the decree dated 10-6-1903 in a suit filed by Ram Saran alone for realization of certain money advanced by him on a bond to some person. This shows that Ram Saran had separate dealings. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that under the Hindu Law even an undivided member of a joint family could carry on his separate business. It is so. But the document is not to be read in isolation. Reading this document along with others, it supports the case of the defendant and not the plaintiffs. The next documents which may be referred here are Exs. A-7 and A-8 copies of the decrees dated 2-1-1915 and 18-3-1916 respectively passed in favour of Bhagwati Prasad for realization of certain loans advanced by him separately. Ext. A-36 is copy of a mortgage deed dated 21-2-1917 executed in favour of Ram Saran alone showing his separate money-lending business.

5. There are three documents which go a long way to support the case of the defendant and demolish that of the plaintiffs. Ext. 129 is a mortgage deed dated 19-4-1911 executed by one Nanak Ram in favour of Bhagwati Prasad for a sum of Rs. 1400/-. Out of the said consideration the two amounts paid were in satisfaction of certain loans advanced to him on the basis of two bonds dated 13-6-1909 and 20-6-1909 Ext. 128 and Ext. 127 respectively. The former in favour of Ram Saran and the latter in favour of Babu Ram.