Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 578
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Hussain, J.
Ram Pravesh Rai Son Of Late Rameshwar Rai And Ram Dei Devi Wife Of late Rameshwar Rai
Versus
Maheshwar Rai Son Of Late Subedar Rai
Decided On : April 02, 2010
The entitlement to a share upon partition and the validity of a deed of gift under Mullas Hindu Law were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Partition - Property Dispute - Mullas Hindu Law - Article 222, Article 315 - The court discussed the claim for partition of joint family property, the validity of a registered deed of gift, and the applicability of the doctrine of blending. The court referred to Mullas Hindu Law, Article 222, and Article 315, and interpreted the provisions to determine the entitlement to a share upon partition and the validity of the deed of gift. The court found that the claim of separate property being thrown into the joint family property was not sustainable, and dismissed the second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming partition of joint family property and challenging a registered deed of gift. The trial court partially decreed the suit, which was dismissed on appeal. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim of separate property being thrown into the joint family property was not sustainable, and dismissed the second appeal.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, cause of action, entitlement to a decree for partition, validity of the deed of gift, and non-joinder of a party to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim of separate property being thrown into the joint family property was not sustainable, as the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim with valid and reliable evidence.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
S.N.Hussain, J.
1. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below.
2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 57 of 1976 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants claiming that Bahasu Raut left behind two sons Guljari Ahir and Subedar Ahir out of whom Subedar Ahir had two sons Rameshwar Rai (dead) and Maheshwar Rai (defendant No. 1). Plaintiffs are the son and widow of Rameshwar Rai, whereas defendant No. 1 Maheshwar Rai had four sons, namely Mewalal and others. It was further claimed by the plaintiffs that there was separation between Rameshwar Rai and Maheshwar Rai, but the property remained joint and there was no partition by metes and bounds. It was also claimed that Rameshwar Rai being insane due to paralysis, the said suit was filed by his son Ram Pravesh Rai, but the said Rameshwar Rai intervened in the suit and was impleaded on 03.05.1978 by the court as defendant No. 2, but subsequently the said Rameshwar Rai died on 23.03.1983 during the pendency of the title appeal.
3. It was further claimed by the plaintiffs that some of the properties were ancestral, whereas some of them were joint acquisition of Rameshwar Rai and Maheshwar Rai. In the said circumstances following reliefs were sought by the plaintiffs:
(i) Decree of partition of Y2 share of plaintiffs in the suit property.
(ii) Cost of litigation to be paid to the plaintiffs.
(iii) Any other reliefs to which the plaintiffs were deemed entitled.
4. Defendant No. 1 Maheshwar Rai filed his written statement claiming that Ramehswar Rai was not insane, rather he was of sound mind and had suffered no paralytic attack and hence the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit in the lifetime of Rameshwar Rai. It was also claimed in his written statement that the plaintiffs had themselves separated from Rameshwar Rai in the year 1974 and had no concern with him and hence in the said circumstances, Rameshwar Rai gifted 15 kathas 8 Y2 dhurs of his self acquired land to Mewalal son of Maheshwar Rai by registered deed of gift dated 12.12.1974 (Ext.A). Defendant No. 2 also filed written statement supporting the claim of defendant No. 1 and also deposed as DW.1 against the plaintiffs in his examination-in chief. It was also claimed that the suit was not maintainable, as his donee Mewalal was not impleaded in the suit.
5. Considering the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues for deciding the title suit:
(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether there is any unity of title and possession between the parties with respect to the suit land?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition, if so, to what extent and for which property?
(v) Whether the property covered by gift deed in favour of Mewalal, is partiable?
(vi) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of Mewalal as party to the suit?
(vii) Whether the gift deed in question is void or voidable?
(viii) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
6. On the aforesaid issues evidence were led and arguments were made on behalf of both the parties, where after Munsif-III, Chapra decreed the suit in part on contest vide his judgment and decree dated 28.09.1981 after arriving at the following findings:
(a) Defendant No. 2 in paragraph-7 of his written statement claimed that 15 kathas 8 Y2 dhurs of land was his self acquired property, which he gifted to Mewalal, but the said statement was not challenged by the plaintiffs in their evidence, rather plaintiff No. 1 as PW.4 admitted that fact.
(b) Article 222 of the Mullas Hindu Law provided that a person who is a member of joint family can hold separate and exclusive property and hence defendant No. 2 was fully entitled to hold separate and exclusive property.
(c) Plaintiffs assertion that defendant No. 2 was of half mind and unable to unders
