after written statements were filed the plaint was amended on 6 7 1939 whereby an alternative claim for 1/8th share of the companypanys property was made if it was held that there was numberjoint family but only a companypany.
it has number companye up before us after 10 years since the passing of the decree by the appellate companyrt in calcutta.
binla and rahul were brought on record as legal representatives of murarilal after his death pending appeal in this companyrt and they are companytesting the present appeal.
they also rejected the plea that even if the family was joint the transfers of the impugned property were for better management of the immovable properties and as such for legal necessity and would thus bind the members of the joint family.
from the judgment and order dated 18 5 1967 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal number 14 of 1957.
c. bhartari for respondents 6 8 9 16 17 21 23 35 37 39 41 and 47.
the appellate companyrt field that the family of ramniranjandas murarka companysisted of himself and his sons and was a joint hindu family governed by mitakashara law until the death of ramniranjandas and thereafter the families of his sons and their sons and grandsons companytinued to be a joint hindu family until the institution of the suit.
harbans singh for respondent number 19 a .
their case was that family was divided and the impugned alienations in favour of d. 12 and d. 13 were valid.
the main companytention that was raised in the appellate companyrt by defendant 12 and defendant 13 the present appellants was that the immovable properties which stood in the name of ramniranjandas were his self acquired properties and they were brought into the assets of companypany of his 8 sons having defined shares in the said properties.
the properties were companyveyed to the appellants companypany.
shankar ghosh and b. dutta for respondents 1 3.
the suit was filed on 22 8 1938.
the position therefore is that the plaintiffs who belonged to laloolals group the widow and son of one of the sons of laloolal who were the only persons that questioned the alienations at the time of the suit later on supported the case of the present appellants while the descendants of two sons radheylal and chinnilal though they originally affirmed the impugned transaction are questioning the validity of transactions and companytesting the appeal before us.
but bimla and rahul who were brought on record pending the appeal in this companyrt are questioning the validity of the impugned transaction though murarilal opposed the plaintiffs claim during the suit and the appeal.
rathin das for respondents 10 31 to 33.
the suit was decreed and an appeal was preferred by defendants 12 and 13.
the present litigation is about 39 years old.
k. mukherjee for respondent number 5.
n. mukherjee for respondents 13 and 14.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1350 of 1967.
it further held that there is numberevidence that immovable properties were brought into the joint stock of the firm by ramniranjandas and that on the assumption that the said properties were separate and self acquired properties of ramniranjandas the said properties were inherited by his 8 sons from their father and upon the fathers death they were ancestral properties in their hands and the respective male descendants of the said 8 sons of ramniranjandas also acquired companyarcenary interest in the said immovable properties.
are defendants 12 and 13 in the suit.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kailasam j. this appeal is by certificate granted by the calcutta high companyrt against its judgment dated 18th may 1967 in appeal number 14 of 1957 upholding and affirming the judgement and decree dated 13 9 1956 in suit number 1607 of 1938.
the trial went on for 63 days.
n. sinha j. b. dadachanji and k. j. john and p. n. chaterjee for the appellant.
chinnilals son is ratanlal and he is respondent 20 who is also companytesting this appeal.
m. jain and s. k. jain for respondents 20 and 42 44.
they have stuck to this plea throughout and as they are in fact supporting the appellants it is unnecessary to companysider their case separately.
nandlal murarka since deceased radhelal murarka defendant number 3 misri lal murarka defendant number 5 chinni lal murarka defendant number 7 chotelal murarka defendant number 8 kisedlal murarka defendant number 9 and vast movable and immovable properties and several business assets situate within and outside the jurisdiction of the calcutta high companyrt.
though chinnilal in his written statement supported the case of the present appellants that the impugned transactions were valid chinnilals son ratanlal who attained majority in 1943 challenged the validity of the impugned transactions 3 years after attaining majority.
the decree was passed by the trial court on 13 9 1956 and the appellate decree is dated 18 5 1967.
the other sons and their des cedants companytested the plaintiffs plea that they were members of a joint family.
motilal murarka died without leaving any issue.
parthasarthi for respondents 25 26.
r. mirdul h. k. puri and m. c. dhingra for respondents 12 a b .
pending appeal the plaintiffs changed their front and started supporting the present appellants defendants 12 and 13 stating that the impugned alienations were binding on them.
one ram niranjands muraraka died on 29th october 1930 leaving his widow janki devi the 10th defendant and 8 sons hiralal murarka defendant number 1.
the suit was filed by beharilal and his mother ginni praying amongst other reliefs for a declaration that the respondent is entitled to 1/8th share in the assets and properties belonging to the joint family for setting aside all conveyances and transfers and for a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to separate properties and funds of laloolal murarka the father of the plaintiff and husband of second plaintiff.
