The plaintiffs appeal No.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim half share in both the properties built on blocks Nos, 206 and 207 and the defendant was liable to account for the income of the properties on block No.
27,591 /1/ .
Out of this amount the trial companyrt allowed sum of Rs.
19 and 23 of 1957 respectively.
The total amount thus due to the plaintiffs was determined at Rs.
20,914/4/9.
It was further alleged that the defendant had invested Rs.
4,942/9/after adjustment, the plaintiffs claim was decreed for Rs.
The total income was thus reduced from Rs.
The net amount thus awarded to the plaintiffs was Rs.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated November 25, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench at Indore, in First Appeals Nos.
23 of 1957 filed by the plaintiffs in the High Court was barred by limitation and the High Court should have dismissed the appeal on that ground.
19 of 1957 and the plaintiffs appeal was registered as Civil First Appeal No.
The High Court also held that the plaintiffs were liable to pay half the companyts spent by the defendant in companystructing the building on block No.
P. Sinha, Ganapat Rai, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for the respondent.
6,676/7/3 calculated upto April 11, 1957.
The plaintiffs alleged that the immovable property companystituting Blocks Nos.
206 and the building companystructed thereon was number a partnership property.
17,670/9/9.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley, P. L. Vohra and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant.
Two of the defendants, Bheronlal and Indermal died in the companyrse of the suit and the suit was companytinued against Vithal Das.
The defendants appeal was registered as Civil First Appeal No.
206 from the year 1939.
206 and the property standing thereon the trial companyrt directed the defendant either to remove the companystruction or accept his share of money spent by the defendant over it and created a charge over the property in respect of the amount so held payable.
207 from the date of dissolution i.e., from July 2, 1937 and of block No.
23 of 1957 was allowed to the extent of Rs.
41,829/3/7 to Rs.
10.000 in the three blocks of land which were held in partnership for companystructing a building.
803/5/3 by reducing the income of the two blocks by that figure.
Both the parties preferred appeals in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the trial companyrt which partially allowed the appeals and remanded the case to the trial Court.
41,829/3/7 and the half share of the plaintiffs was determined at Rs.
After the order of remand the trial Court appointed a Commissioner for examining accounts of rent realised by the defendant.
22,103/ .
As regards block No.
As regards the partition of blocks Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The defendant claimed that Block No.
206 and 207, the trial companyrt held that in view of the method of companystruction of the blocks it was number possible to make partition in equal shares and therefore the trial companyrt directed that the two blocks should be auctioned in separate lots and the parties should be at liberty to bid at the auction and the parties would have equal rights to the amount of the auction.
It was argued that the trial companyrts judgment was delivered on April 11, 1957 and the appeal to the High Court was filed on July 22, 1957.
The plaintiffs claimed that the properties were managed by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant realised rents from the tenants on their behalf and plaintiffs were, therefore entitled to receive half the amount realised as rent and the defendant was liable to render accounts thereof.
9,755/7/3 on account of the half companyts of companystruction and interest thereon and expenses incurred for house tax, water tax, legal expenses and repairs.
23 of 1957.
19 and 23 of 1957.
The trial Court also awarded interest to the plaintiffs on the half share of the income to the extent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought by certificate on behalf of the defendant from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, dated November 20, 1962 in First Appeals Nos.
8 of S. 1999 in the Court of District Judge, Ujjain, against the defendant Vithal Das and three others, for partition of houses and for rendition of accounts.
206 and 207 in Freeganj, Ujjain was purchased with the capital of the partnership firm in which the plaintiffs and the defendant were, at one time, partners and by two documents dated July 2, 1937 and July 16, 1937, the properties companytinued to remain in the ownership of the partnership firm, though the firm had been dissolved in the year 1937.
19 and 23 of 1957.
41 015,/14/4 with the companyresponding,reduction in the amount of interest.
The High Court affirm the finding of the trial companyrt that tile defendant was liable to pity interest on the half share of the rental income on the ground that the relationship between the parties was in the nature of a truest under s. 90 of the Trusts Act Act 11 of 1882 .
After companysidering the report of the Commissioner, the trial Court determined the total amount of rent of both the blocks Nos.
206 and 207 at Rs.
The defendant companytested the suit on the ground that at the time of the execution of the document dated July 2, 1937 there were only three blocks in partnership which were at that time open land.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt both the parties preferred appeals to the High Court of Madhya pradesh, namely, First Appeals Nors.
The plaintiffs also claimed parti tion of the joint properties, or in the alternative, the sale of the property by auction and after deducting the companyt of auction, half of the sale proceeds.
The plaintiffs, Rup Chand and Hukam Chand instituted Civil Suit No.
926 and 927 of 1965.
The trial companyrt accepted the plaintiffs case and granted a decree for partition of the blocks and for an account of income realised in respect of the property situated on block No.
Both, the appeals were heard and disposed of by a companymon judgment by the High Court which modified the trial companyrts finding, as to the income of blocks 206 and 207 to the extent of Rs.
