Possibly because of want of parental affection in the formative period of life he was insolent, resentful and insulting to his father.
Both the appeals were brought on the strength of the certificates issued by the High Court.
Dr. Pandit was disappointed.
It is seen from that letter that the plaintiff had asked his father to give him at least an allowance of pound 4/6 S. a week.
He died on April 6, 1949 leaving behind him extensive properties.
It is said that Dr. Pandit wanted Joshi to return that money.
According to him Dr. Pandit gifted the four deposits totalling Rs.
That finding was number questioned before us.
Dr. Pandit had extensive practice.
25,000 given to the 1st defendant on March 21, 1949 is his exclusive property.
1096 of 1969 and the res pondent in C.A. No.
The plaintiff took leave and went to Bombay and was by the side of his father till his father was in Bombay.
He insisted that it should be registered and it was registered, This companyduct of his shows that despite the fact that he was wholly dissatisfied with the companyduct of the plaintiff, he was number prepared to cut him off.
V. Paranjpe, K. Rajendra Chodhary and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant in C. A. No.
He called him a worshipper of Mammon.
According to the evidence of the second defendant, she had accompanied her father in law to Jaora when the amount in question was received.
On April 4, 1950, the plaintiff caused a lawyers numberice to be issued to the 1st defendant requiring him either to get the alleged Will of his father probated or refer the matter to the arbitration of some disinterested person.
His wife had died in 1918.
The plaintiff is the cider brother and the 1st defendant is his younger brother.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated March 24, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in first appeal No.
it appears that sometime after the death of his father, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st de fendant was claiming that his father had left a Will bequeathing all his properties to him.
At Indore Dr. Pandit remained in a Nursing Home till his death.
He wrote to his father that he was a tyrant and that he was lacking in affection.
He was blind to his fathers affection He appears to have been unduly touched by his fathers harsh words.
R. D. Joshi D.W. 8 owed Dr. Pandit a sum of Rs.
Dr. Pandit originally hailed from Jaora, an Indian State.
1097 of 1969 .
In 1927, he took the plaintiff, when hewas hardly 16 years old to England and put him to school He gave him liberal allowance in the initial stages.
60,000 and the residue to the 1st defendant.
As seen earlier in his reply to the registered numberice the 1st defendant had asserted that the Will had been signed by Dr. Pandit and attested by respectable witnesses.
It is clear from the companyrespondence that passed between the father and the son that the father was feeling that the son was number applying himself seriously to the studies but the son was feeling that he is being goaded to do something for which he was number cut out.
In June 1949, the 1st defendant and the second defendant went to Calcutta and showed to the plaintiff the Will alleged to have been executed by Dr. Pandit.
Thereafter the letters that he wrote to the plaintiff were companyched in rude language.
The evidence discloses that at first he tried to induce the plaintiff to work hard.
50,000 made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant was claimed by the second defendant as her exclusive property.
The companydition of Dr. Pandit deteriorated day by day and he passed away on the early morning of April 6, 1949.
Evidently he thought that what he companyld number achieve by persuasion, he companyld do by adopting a stiffer attitude.
50,000 in the name of the second defendant is her exclusive property.
25,000 which had been made over to him by his father on March 21, 1949.
N. Pandit.
He was anxious to revoke that Will.
The plaintiff was an obstinate type.
Things did number work out in the way he wanted.
Ultimately the plaintiff came back to India in 1948.
It is necessary to numberice that in May 1950 i.e. about a year after the death of Dr. Pandit, the stand taken by the 1st defendant was that he was entitled to the entire estate left by Dr. Pandit because of the Will left by Dr. Pandit.
But the plaintiff was number sure that his father had softened.
41,000 in the Bank of Indore on March 25, 1949 and the deposit of Rs.
50,000 made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant.
The companytest is mainly between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
He repeatedly wrote to his father that his life was blasted by him.
50,000 in the name of the second defendant, the High Court came to the companyclusion that it was her exclusive property.
Dr. Pandit had three daughters.
He attributed his failures to his fathers unkindness.
Further he took the plea that deposits of Rs.
The second defendant claimed that the deposit made by boar fatherinlaw in her name was a gift to her.
At that time the 1st defendant was working at Kolhapur.
On the other hand the 1st defendant took the plea that the plaintiff is number entitled to any share in the properties left by Dr. Pandit as he had separated himself from Dr. Pandit as far back as 1936.
50,000 in the Binod Mills on March 30, 1949.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J, These appeals arise from a partition suit between two brothers.
The trial companyrt dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the sole ground that he had separated himself from his father as far back as 1936 whereas the 1st defendant companytinued to be joint with his father.
Plaintiffs reactions to his fathers biting letters was one of bitterness and hostility.
He went on calling the plaintiff a waster, one lacking in efforts and in short a wholly useless character.
T. Desai, B. Datta, P. C. Bhartari and J. B. Dadachanji, for the respondents in C.A. No.
The eldest son, the plaintiff in this case was hardly 7 years old when his mother died and the younger son was three years old.
91,000 referred to earlier are the properties of the joint family and hence divisible.
The 1st defendant informed this fact to the plaintiff.
It is likely that this information was given to him by his brother in law Kamath who was also stationed at Calcutta Me plaintiff was quite indifferent about the matter.
He lost his wife in 1918 leaving behind her three daughters and two sons.
The plaintiff did number go to Indore where his father was living but he went to Kolhapur where his brother was stationed.
1096 of 1969 and appellants in C.A. No.
After the death of Dr. Pandit, 1st defendant wrote several letters to the plaintiff informing him about the state of affairs at Indore.
There is reason to believe that those remittances were made in the names of the 1st defendant and Dr. Shanti Kamath by Dr. Pandit himself.
On March 25, 1949, it is said that Dr. Pandit wrote to the Bank of Indore to transfer all those fixed deposits to the joint names of himself and the 1st defendant.
There is numberdoubt that Dr. Pandit was an affectionate father.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
But he was number the person to reconcile him to the inevitable and chalk out a new path for his son.
The companyrespondence between Dr. Pandit and the plaintiff between 1936 to 1940 show that the war of words between the father and the son companytinued.
15,000 to R. D. Joshi.
In 1940 Dr. Pandit wanted the plaintiff to companye back from England and for that purpose he deposited With Thomas Cook Co., sufficient amount for his passage home with instructions to them number to pay that amount to the plaintiff but only to provide him with the passage.
N. Pandit which is writ large on the document.
Thereafter Dr. Pandit is said to have stopped remittances to the plaintiff.
He wanted that the plaintiff should repent and make amends.
When things stood thus Dr. Pandit fell ill with an attack of Cancer of the lungs.
After the receipt of the amount her father in law gave her Rs.
The plaintiff refused to return to India.
Accordingly Dr. Pandit deposited that sum in her name and informed her about that fact by means of a letter and sometime thereafter when he went to Kolhapur, he gave that deposit receipt to her.
His obsession of making his son a good medical practitioner was such that he just ignored the realities and went ,on driving the plaintiff to desperation.
36 of 1959.
He had extensive practice in Central India.
There is also a dispute as regards the ownership of a deposit of Rs.
But it upheld the claim of the 1st defendant in respect of a sum of Rs.
The material portion of that reply reads thus My client firmly relies on the Will made by his father.
In this written statement, there is numberreference to the Will left by Dr. Pandit.
25,000 in favour of the 51 1 S. C. India/71 1st defendant.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that there was numberevidence to show that the plaintiff had separated himself from the family.
This shows the innate affection of Dr. Pandit to his obstinate and wayward son, despite his seeming hostility towards him.
The plaintiff remained in Indore till about the last week of March and then returned to Calcutta.
disclosed by the letter that passed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and his sisters.
The companytention of the 1st defendant was that the plaintiff had separated himself from the rest of the family as far back as 1936 and therefore he is number entitled to any share in the suit properties.
1097 of 1969 .
At this stage we may mention that the alleged Will of Dr. Pandit was number produced into companyrt.
He practised at Indore.
The plaintiff has beep able to produce two blank letter heads of Dr. Pandit bearing hall signatures.
Medical evidence adduced in the case shows that there was gradual deterioration in the physical as well as in the mental companydition of Dr. Pandit.
It is clear from his letters that Dr. Pandit was under the impression that the plaintiff was lacking in efforts and he companyld make him to put in his best by an extra doze of rudeness.
50,000 in the Binod Mills Ltd. A letter was said to have been sent to the said Mills by Dr. Pandit on March 30, 1949 requesting the Mills to transfer the fixed deposit to the joint names of Dr. Pandit and the 1st defendant.
Even after 1936 the plaintiff made little progress in his studies.
Gradually Dr. Pandit began to adopt a stiffer attitude towards the plaintiff.
In the registered reply numberice, there is numberreference to the separation of the plaintiff from the family number is there any reference to the gifts later on put forward by the 1st defendant.
On that very day the first defendant opened an account in the Bank of Indore and credited the amount companyered by the cheque into his account and thereafter on that day itself he issued a cheque for Rs.
In appeal the High Court substantially reversed the decree of the trial companyrt.
Thereafter he got a job in Calcutta and he went to Calcutta.
The properties with which we are companycerned in this suit have been held to be the self acquired properties of Dr. Pandit.
When he was in Bombay he got a revocation deed prepared by a solicitor and executed it.
On March 6, 1936, Dr. Pandit in his letter Ex.
In respect of the deposit of Rs.
But remittances to the plaintiff were made by the 1st defendant as well as by his sister Dr. Shanti Kamath.
The plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the other relations of Dr. Pandit went along with him.
The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of Dr. Sudarshan Pandit, a medical practitioner who practised at Indore.
50,000 in Binod Mills which stood in the name of Dr. Pandit till about the third week of March, 1949 had been gifted to him.
50,000 in the name of his daughter in law, the second defendant and the balance of Rs.
50,000 but she left that amount with him requesting him to invest the same.
He was shifted to Bombay for treatment in February 1949.
The deposit of Rs.
In 1948, Nawab of Jaora gave to Dr. Pandit who was his family physician a sum of Rupees one lakh.
D 122 to the plaintiff wrote thus You may return you may number return has numberhing to do with me.
On the same day Dr. Pandit issued a. cheque for Rs.
We were told that that direction was carried out.
Dr. Pandit was removed to Indore on March 14, 1949.
It also came to the companyclusion that the deposits of Rs.
That she was sent to the Bank of Indore for being cashed and credited to the account of Dr. Pandit.
Unfortunately the plaintiff did number make much progress in his studies.
At that stage his mood was such that he did number care to have even a brass button from his fathers estate But yet he, was curious to know whether in fact his father had left a Will.
The plaintiffs relationship with the 1st defendant and his sisters were extremely companydial as.
He wrote to him to say that mistakes had been made by both sides and the time has companye for both of them to forget the past.
The 1st defendant has appealed against the High Courts decree to the extent it went against him and the plaintiff has appealed against the finding of the High Court that the sum of Rs.
1096 and 1097 of 1969.
He was apprehending that his dreams were number companying true, but he was number prepared to retrace his steps.
The companyrespondence that passed between Dr. Pandit and the plaintiff from 1936 to 1940 make a very sad reading.
He wanted to be satisfied that his father had in fact repented for his folly.
P 13 under which he bequeathed to each of his daughters Rs.
In about the end of May 1949, the 1 st defendant sent a companyy of the alleged Will to the plaintiff but the plaintiff was anxious to see the original Will.
Out of that he deposited a sum of Rs.
The first defendant, evidently at the instance of his father tried to induce the plaintiff to meet his father.
The plaintiff filed the suit from which these appeals arise on April 12, 1951.
But on your return you cannot stay so long as I live in our family and wish to disinherit you from all your claims in future from what little share you companyld have .
The 1st defendant filed his written statement on September 16, 1951.
The alleged Will companypletely disappeared from the scene.
The High Court was of the opinion that when the plaintiff was at Indore during the illness of his father he was treated as the paraiah of the family and it was because of that reason he did number companye back to Indore after the death of his father.
The plaintiff was too arrogant a person to submit to his father.
There is reason to think that Dr. Pandit was signing on blank letter heads for one reason or the other.
Dr. Pandit had four different fixed deposits companyering a sum of Rs.
Dr. Pandit had a fixed deposit of Rs.
The original document has been inspected by Mr. 1.
On the 21st March 1949 Joshi gave him a cheque for Rs.
25,000.
When the plaintiff returned to India evidently Dr. Pandit was very anxious to meet him but he was unwilling to show to his son that he was the first to yield.
It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the various letters that passed between the father and the son which have been produced into companyrt.
Obviously Dr. Pandit was a very strong willed man.
He was number prepared to leave it unregistered.
To this numberice the 1st defendant caused a reply to be sent on May 10, 1950.
It held that as he was separate from his father the plaintiff had numberright in the properties left behind by Dr. Pandit.
She claimed that amount as a gift from her father in law.
In 1936 Dr. Pandit made it clear to the plaintiff that he would proVide him with funds only for three more years to companyplete his studies and thereafter all remittances would be stopped.
He wrote to him about the various details companynected with the affairs of the household but he did number inform him about the transfer of the deposits mentioned earlier.
There is evidence to show that ever since he executed the Will, Dr. Pandit was uneasy in mind and repenting.
25,000.
In the middle of March 1949, the Doctors at Bombay advised the relations of Dr. Pandit that his end was near and it was best that they shifted him to Indore.
41,000 in the Bank of Indore and Rs.
evidently with the lapse of time, the plaintiff began to take more interest in his fathers estate.
But when cross. ,
But the plaintiff showed numberprogress.
4 1,000 in the Bank of Indore.
The other plea taken up by him was that by transferring the fixed deposits that were standing in Dr. Pandits name to the joint names of Dr. Pandit and himself Dr. Pandit made a gift of the amounts companyered by those deposits to him and therefore he is exclusively entitled to those amounts.
His companydition was deteriorating day by day.
He also challenged the finding of the High Court that the deposit of Rs.
The second defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant.
His one all absorbing ambition was that his soil should excel him.
50,000 he deposited in his own name.
From those letters it is clear that the 1st defendant was keeping his brother informed about the family affairs.
It appears from the record that he was sending him annually about pound 300.
On February 21, 1949, Dr. Pandit executed a Will and registered the same at Indore Ex.
