Ranawat, J.—This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, Chiranjilal and Chitar-mal. against the judgment of the District Judge, Alwar, dated the 24th May, 1951, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition of coparcenary properties.

2. The facts of the case, as alleged by the plaintiffs, are that Ram Pratap, who was living at the time of the filing of the suit, was the father of Chiranjilal and Chitarmal, who are the plaintiffs and also of Gordhan, who is defendants No. 1. The family consisting of the father and three sons was alleged to be joint and the properties specified in the plaint were alleged to be joint family properties. The plaintiffs claimed 2/3rd share in the joint family properties. The defendant, Ram Pratap, filed a written statement saying that there were no ancestral properties left by Jhuntaram. the grandfather of the plaintiffs, and that the properties of which partition was claimed were his own self-acquired properties, and the plaintiffs had no share in them. He had made a gift of those properties in favour of Kalu Ram, the son of Gordhan, and had got the gift-deed duly registered. It was in the alternative pleaded that if the plaintiffs be considered to have any share in the properties. Gordhan was also entitled to 1/3rd share as he was one of the sons of Ram Pratap and as his adoption to Ganga Sahai, brother of Ram Pratap, set up by the plaintiffs was not a fact. Replies of Gordhan and Kaluram were to the same effect as that of Ram Pratap. Ram Pratap died after filing his written statement and the proceedings in the suit continued between the son of Rampratap along with Kaluram who was his grandson. The findings of the trial court were that no ancestral properties came to the hand of Rampratap after the death of Jhunta-ram, his father and grand-father of the plaintiffs. It was further held that the properties of which the partition was claimed were acquired through the earnings of Rampratap during his life-time and the plaintiffs who were the sons of Rampratap could claim no interest in those properties merely because they may have assisted their father in the conduct of his business by sitting on his shop and by helping him in the discharge of his trade. The suit of the plaintiffs was therefore, dismissed.

3. In this appeal two points have been urged by the learned counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs—

(1) that the piece of land on which haveli was constructed by Rampratap was the ancestral property and when Rampratap built a house on it he must be taken to have treated it as making an addition to the ancestral property.

The finding of the lower court on this issue is challenged by the appellants on the basis of the evidence of Mangilal (P. W. 3) who stated that the land of the haveli belonged to Ramprataps father—

(2) that even assuming that Jhuntaram left no property on his death and that the properties of which partition is claimed were acquired subsequently during the life-time of Rampratap as it has been proved by the evidence that Chiranjilal and Chitarmal assisted Rampratap in the conduct of his business, the properties so acquired should be considered to be joint family properties and the suit of the plaintiffs should, therefore, have been decreed.

Reliance in this behalf is placed on the decisions in Haridas Narayandas Bhatia vs. Devkuvarbai Mulji (l), Harkesh Singh us. Mst. Hardevi(2) and Sarwal Das vs. Kuremal (3).

4. There are no comments on the evidence of Mangilal (P. W. 3) in the judgment of the lower court. The age of the witness is stated to be of 50 years only, and it is conceded by the learned counsel of the appellants that Jhuntaram died about 49 to 50 years before the date of the filing of the suit. Obviously, the witness must have been very young at the time Jhuntaram died and it cannot be conceived that he had an opportunity to know the state of things which prevailed at the time of Jhuntarams death. Much value, therefore, cannot be attached to the statement of this witness. Contrary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document