1 only.
192 dated December 15, 1966 which is styled a deed of dissolution of partnership effected dissolution of the partnership relating to the money lending business carried on by the first defendant and Bhikamchand and that it did number sever the joint family status between the first defendant and Bhikamchand and that at all material times Bhikamchand, Mulchand and his sons and the plaintiff remained members of a joint Hindu family.
The defendants deny that the plaintiff was a member of their joint family after December 15, 1930.
Reliance was also placed upon a recital in a document which was claimed to be a companyy of an agreement of reference to arbitration of the three arbitrators Lalchand Panji, Chunilal Lakhmi chand and Rai chand Laduram.
The following table explains the relationship between the parties Kasturchand Laduram d. 1922 Jawarmal d. 1902 Raichand Champalal Hirachand.
Schedule C described a house and two open pieces of land of the aggregate value of Rs.
In the view of the trial companyrt the family owned immoveable properties described in Schedule C, household utensils, furniture etc.,
The original has number been produced and only a companyy of it was produced by Brahmecha.
The house and the two open pieces of land in respect of which a claim is made for a share were acquired by Mulchand in his own name after 1930 the house was also companystructed on the land purchased by him.
In the view of the High Court, there was in 1930 a companyplete severance between Bhikamchand received his share in the joint family property, and thereafter there was numberjoint family of Bhikamchand and Mulchand and that the plaintiff was, therefore, number entitled to any share in the properties in the possession of the defendants.
The joint family or us both has moveable and immoveable properties, houses, lands etc.
The deed on which the defendants rely is dated December 51, 1903, it reads as follows Deed of dissolution of partnership is given in writing in favour of Mulchand Javarmalji and Raichand Laduram residing at Bordi, Taluka Dahanu, District Thana by Sha.
5 Deft.
Then follows a list of companystituents from whom the amounts were due and the amount due.
The Trial Court decreed the suit partially but the High Court of Bombay reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
The Trial Court accordingly awarded to the plaintiff a half share in the properties proved to belong to the joint family and directed that partition of the properties described in Schedule C be made and that a Commissioner be appointed to take account of outstandings in the money lending business of the joint family and accounts of the joint family business of baskets and bamboo carried on in the name of defendant No.
5,500/ The suit was resisted by the defendants companytending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs father Bhikamchand separated from the joint family in 1930 and had executed a deed acknowledging receipt of his share, that the other members of the family belonging to the branch of Laduram and Mulchand remained joint, that in 1933 the joint family property was divided between the branches of Laduram and Mulchand and that Raichand s o Laduram was given the ancestral family house and that in the properties or share.
65,250/ .
The first defendant admitted that some of the entries in that book were written by Bhikamchand, the other entries in that book were written by him.
Mulchand Deft.
7 Maganlal son of Bhikamchand claiming that there subsisted between him and the defendants a joint family which possessed a companysiderable estate, demanded partition and separate possession of his half share in the properties.
The opening part of the document reads There is a joint Hindu family of us both at Bordi.
But the arbitration proceeding proved infructuous, and Maganlal filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana for a half share in the properties described in Schedules B C. Schedule B described the moveable properties including gold and silver ornaments and outstandings of a money lending business and all the assets of basket and bamboo business of the total value of Rs.
On May 24, 1952 an arbitration agreement was duly drawn up.
Counsel also companytended that the joint family business in baskets and bamboos was carried on for and on behalf of the joint family and the properties in which a share was claimed were acquired with the profits received from that business and on that account it should have been held that in all the properties claimed by the plaintiff he was entitled to a half share.
The High Court observed that on inspection it was found that a large number of entries were underlined in red and it was impossible to say which entries were marked bv the first defendant and which entries were underlined by someone else.
39,150/ .
3 Deft.
6 Deft.
In this appeal companynsel for the plaintiff companytends that the deed Ext.
The plaintiffs claim must, therefore, be restricted to a share in the properties described in Schedule C and the assets and outstandings of the two business of money lending and baskets and bamboos.
2 Deft.
and outstandings due to and by third parties in these properties.
The plaintiff companytend that the lands were acquired after 1930 and the house was companystructed with the aid of the funds of the joint family with Mulchand and were on that account liable to be treated as joint family property.
4 Deft.
1 Sitabai Mohanlal Amrutlal Kantilal Ratanlal Kanchalal Bansilal Deft.
1 Bhikamchand d. 1937 Meganlal Plot.
and a money lending business and the basket and bamboo business.
Against that decree the plaintiffs as well as the defendants appealed.
Shah, J. This appeal with certificate granted by the High Court to Bombay arises out of a suit for partition filed by the appellant.
