He alleged in the plaint that he, Tek Bahadur and Dhanbir Bhujil were brothers and belonged to the same joint family centering round their companymon mother, defendant No.
The companytention of the appellant about the agreement, Exhibit 3, being number a record of a family arrangement is based on several grounds.
Two other businesses were subsequently started.
2, and uterine brother of Debi Singh Bhujil, respondent No.
The appellant companytested the suit on various grounds, including the one that all the properties were self acquired properties of his and that numberody else had any right, title or claim in them.
3, who had companye from Nepal about 26 years earlier.
Of the issues framed, two issues were Whether the properties in suit are joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant 1, to the suit, or the self acquired property of defendant 1 alone?
The plaintiff and Tek Bahadur were to enjoy half and half the landed property and the dairy business, while Dhanbir was to enjoy the other two businesses.
These businesses were in the name of Dhanbir Bhujil.
1 as alleged in para 2 of the plaint.
It may be mentioned that Dhanbir Bhujil and Beli Bhujilini were pro forma defendants and the real relief was claimed against Tek Bahadur, appellant.
The mother was to enjoy the house property in Shillong Cantonment which had been purchased in her name.
It was further alleged that the property in suit and the dairy business were acquired by the family in the name of Tek Bahadur, the eldest brother.
The allegations in the plaint were number admitted and it was specifically stated the mother was never or is the head of the family as alleged number were the properties acquired by the family in the name of the defendant No.
Tek Bahadur, appellant, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of United Khasi Jaintia Hills at Shillong.
1 holding that the properties in suit were joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.
Debi Singh, respondent 1, was a uterine brother of the appellant and respondent 2 and therefore companyld number be a member of their family.
Their mother was Beli Bhujilini, respondent No.
Whether there was any division of the properties with separate possession and enjoyment as alleged?
The appeal was dismissed.
3, since deceased.
1 and that there had been a division of the family properties with separate possession and enjoyment by the parties as alleged by the plaintiff.
The trial Court decreed the suit against defendant No.
It was stated that on December 31, 1942, the brothers decided with the companysent of the mother to enjoy the properties and the businesses in a certain specified manner.
1 instituted a suit on September 3, 1946, against the other three aforesaid persons, in the Court of the Assistant Political Officer, Khasi States, Shillong, for partition of his half share in the property mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint, as well as his half share of the business known as Gurkha Dairy at Mawprem, for separate possession of his such half share by metes and bounds and for his half share in the income of profits of the business since January, 1, 1943 to the date of the decree.
They were the Indian Sweet meat House and the Dilkhosh Cabin, at Police Bazaar, Shillong.
Tek Bahadur then went up in revision to the High Court of Judicature in Assam, under Rule 36 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, as adopted and modified by the Assam Autonomous Districts Administration of Justice Regulation, 1952, as applied to the Administered Areas of Shillong.
Respondent No.
Raghubar Dayal, J. This appeal, on certificate issued by the Assam High Court, is by Tek Bahadur Bhujil, brother of Dhanbir Bhujil, respondent No.
