LODHA, J.—This is a defendants revision arising out of a suit for partition.

2. The case has a chequered history. Defendant Mahadeo, petitioner is the father and the plaintiff Hanumanmal (who has died since the institution of this revision petition and is now represented by respondents Nos. 1(a) to 1(j) was the son of Mahadeo. Baboolal respondent is the second son of Mahadeo. Mahadeo had two brothers Chaturbhuj and Kaluram. Choturbhuj left no issue and Kaluram had one son Gordhan Prasad, who is also one of the respondents before me. Hanumanmal filed the suit for partition in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh on 13-1-1953 against Mahadeo, Baboolal and Gordhan Prasad alleging that his grandfather Chandmal had left a Haveli in Ratangarh in which Gordhan Prasad had half share which had already been partitioned by metes and bounds and thus there remained the other half share in which he, his brother Baboolal and his father Mahadeo were entitled to get l/3rd share each. He also averred in the plaint that there was some moveable joint family property belonging to himself and his father and brother which too had to be partitioned. He valued l/6th share in the Haveli to which he was entitled at Rs. 2000/- and l/3rd share of the moveables at Rs. 500/-and thus valued his suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 2500/-. It was prayed that the Haveli may be partitioned by metes and bounds and he may be put in possession of l/6th share of the same. It was also prayed that the moveable property may be partitioned and l/3rd share in the moveable property may be ordered to be given to him.

3. Defendant Gordhan Prasad remained absent inspite of service and was proceeded against exparte. Mahadeo filed written statement but did not contest the plaintiffs claim but on the other hand admitted it. Defendant No. 2 Baboolal in his written statement, pleaded that besides the house mentioned in the plaint there were some more properties liable to be partitioned. He pleaded that a suit for partial partition could not lie and that the entire joint family property including the assets of the joint family firm Chandanmal Mahadeo should be partitioned His case was that if all the properties liable to be partitioned were taken into consideration then the share of the plaintiff alone in those properties would be more than Rs. 10,000/-. He therefore, contended that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge Ratangarh, who was competent to try suits of valuation of not more than Rs. 10,000/-. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge, Ratangarh framed six issues in all which read as under :

(1) Are the Nohra situate in the Mohalla of Beghraj Maharasiya and the Haveli situated behind the temple of Malies ancestral properties of the parties, and, therefore must be included in the suit for partition ?

(2) In the suit not triable by the Civil Judge, Ratangarh ?

(3) Is the firm Chandanmal Mahadeo an ancestral firm of the parties and should be included in the partition suit ?

(4) Are the silver bar, gold ornaments and utensils etc. also the ancestral properties of the parties and should be included in the suit ?

(5) What should be the scheme of the partition ?

(6) Relief ?

4. Before any evidence could be led on any of these issues, an application (marked Ex. A. 1 on the record) signed by Mahadeo Hanumanmal and Baboolal was presented before the Court on 6 4-1954 proying that the parties wanted to get the dispute regarding partition decided by the arbitrators Sagarmal Norangmal and Ghanshyamdas. It was prayed in this application that the arbitrators would have full authority to determine the joint family property of the parties and to give any decision in the matter which they thought fit. In other words very wide and comprehensive power was given to the arbitrators to determine the items of joint family property and to carry out the partition in whatevar way they liked. The trial court allowed this application and referred th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document