Judgement

Appeal (No. 108 of 1926) from a judgment of the High Court (April 17, 1924) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddapah, which affirmed a decree of the District Munsif.

The suit giving rise to the appeal was brought in 1917 by the first respondent against his undivided brothers and his sisters son, the appellant. The plaintiff claimed a declaration that he and each of the defendants were entitled to a fourth share of properties which, in addition to properties of the joint family, included property which the appellant when a minor had inherited, and properties (one of which had been bought in the name of the appellant) bought out of the produce of the combined properties ; he claimed a partition on that basis.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Courts in India found in effect that there was an implied agreement that the whole property should be treated as the common property of all the four parties, and upon that basis decreed the suit.

1928. Oct. 22, 23. Dunne K.C. and Narasimham for the appellant. The onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that the appellants property had ceased to be his exclusively. There cannot be implied from the circumstances an agreement to treat the whole property as if the four parties formed a joint Hindu family. The terms of s. 49 of the Indian Registration Act did not make the karar inadmissible for the collateral purpose of negativing any such agreement. In any case however no agreement by the appellant to give up his ancestral property can be implied. The true inference as to the property bought in his name is that it was intended to represent the produce from his own property.

De Gruyther K.C. and Subba Row for the first respondent. The karar was inadmissible for any purpose in the suit. There is nothing to prevent persons even if Christians from agreeing that they shall mutually have the same rights as if they formed a joint family Francis Ghosal v. Gabri Ghosal. (( 1906)

I. L. R. 31 B. 25.) From the circumstances such an agreement is to be inferred. The appellant came of age in 1901, and had since continued to live with his uncles as though a member of the joint family ; he never demanded any account. The Courts in India have concurrently found that the facts showed an agreement to treat the whole property as the common property of the parties. The Board should regard these findings as conclusive. If there was no such agreement the rights of the parties are governed by s. 253 of the Indian Contract Act. Narasimham replied.

Nov. 15. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD ATKIN. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Madras affirming a judgment of the temporary Subordinate Judge of Cuddapah who affirmed a judgment of the District Munsif of Proddatur. The suit is brought by the plaintiff, a member of a joint undivided Hindu family, for partition. The defendants, so far as is relevant to the present issues, are his two brothers and the appellant Jogi Reddi. The question at issue is whether certain properties are, as the plaintiff affirms, joint family properties, or, as the appellant affirms, the separate property of the appellant.

Chinnabbi Reddi the plaintiff, Munir Reddi, and Chinnabali Reddi were brothers forming a joint Hindu family. They owned some 17 acres of land of poor quality and were poor folk. They had a sister, Sanjamma, who married Chinnaya, a Christian. The appellant, Jogi Reddi, is the only son of the marriage. Chinnaya was in better circumstances than his wifes family. He owned 24 acres of land apparently of good quality, part of it being represented by an undivided half interest in land of which the other half interest was owned by his brother. After his marriage, Chinnaya came to live in his wifes village. He died in 1887, when Jogi Reddi, the appellant, was about four years old, leaving the appellant the heir to his property. After his death, the mother and child went to live with the childs unc