The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a division between family branches and the influence of evidence in determining the existence of a separation in an undivided Hindu family.

Lord Simonds.-

These consolidated appeals from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which varied a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Aligarh, have involved the close scrutiny of a large number of documents covering a long period of years. In this task their Lordships have been greatly assisted by the diligent researches of counsel for the appellants, but after a careful consideration of all the material before them they have come to the conclusion that no sufficient reason has been shown for displacing the judgment of the High Court.

[2] The appeals raise the question in broadest outline whether there has been a separation of an undivided Hindu family of which the common ancestor was one Bhawani Das, who died very many years ago. The family and the parties to the suit out of which these appeals arise can be conveniently seen in the following pedigree :

Bhawani Das

Girdhari Lal (died 1864) Kashi Ram (died 1885) Chain Sukh. Mohan Lal Tika Ram

Matru Mal (died 1918) Behari Lal (died 1902)

Yad Ram, Ghanshyam Das,

Defendant No. 6, Defendant No. 7,

(adopted, 11 - 7 - 13) (born 1915)

Chet Ram (died Basdeo Prasad Bhimsen Tola Ram,

before 1902. or Sahai (died 1918) Defendant No. 3.

Musammat Deft. No. 1.

Rukmin widow,

Defendant No. 4 Ramesh Ch. minor,

Defendant No. 2

Chote Lal (deceased)

Masammat Gango widow.

Defendant No. 5

Durga Prasad, Gaya Prasad, Yad Ram, Defendant No. 6,

Plaintiff No. 1 (born 1908) Plaintiff No. 2, minor adopted by Matru Mal

[3] Of the facts which are stated in the pedigree, their Lordships take particular note of the circumstance that the respondent Ghanshiam Das was not born until 1915 and that prior to his birth the appellant Yad Ram had been adopted by Matru Mal who was then without male issue. Yad Ram was the natural son of Bhimsen who was the son of Bahari Lal who was the son of Kashi Ram, and thus belonged naturally to the other branch of the family from that of Ghaushiam Das who descended from Girdhari Lal.

[4] In the year 1938 the present suit was commenced by the appellants Durga Prasad and Gaya Prasad and a third plaintiff who subsequently disappeared from the proceedings. Every member of the family was made a party to the suit and they were conveniently grouped into five sets of defendants (1) Basdeo Sahai and his son Ramesh Chander (defendants 1 and 2), (2) Tota Ram (defendant 3), (3) Mt. Rukman Kunwar and Mt. Gango (defendants 4 and 5), (4) Yad Ram and Ghanshiam Das (defendants 6 and 7) and (5) Sri Thakur Murli Manoharji Maharaj (defendant 8) whose rights are no longer in dispute.

[5] By their plaint the plaintiffs pleaded inter alia that (a) during the time of Bhawani Das Girdhari Lal and his brothers there was no family property or fund and that Matru Mal, Kashi Ram and Behari Lal acquired property and collected funds by their own efforts; (b) that Matru Mal adopted Yad Ram and executed a will on 17 - 12 - 1913, whereby he bequeathed his property in equal shares to Yad Ram and to his natural son, if any, born to his second wife, and that thereafter Ghanshiam Das was born so that he and Yad Ram became the owners of Matru Mal's property in equal shares ; (c) that both Bihari Lal and Matru Mal carried on a separate money - lending business, the former under the style of Kashi Ram Behari Lal and the latter under the style of Girdhari Lal Matru Lal and that in addition they carried on a joint business under the style of Kashi Ram Matru Mal of which they were joint owners in equal shares; (d) that since the death of Matru Mal in 1918 all three concerns had been managed and supervised by Basdeo alone; (e) that the family of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 had remained joint and defendant 1 (Basdeo) was the manager and supervisor thereof; (f) that by reason of the dishonest dealings of Basdeo and his failure to render accounts the plaintiffs did not wish to remain joint and claimed partition; (g) that defendants 4 and 5 were entitled only to maintenance but as some of the zaminda