Chuni Lal, the son of Raghunath Sahai was defendant 6, Bal Kishan and Hari Kishan the two sons of Jagan Nath were defendants 7 and 8, and Badri Nath was defend.
This preliminary decree specified the shares of the respective parties and left three outstanding issues to be determined by Chuni Lal, defendant 6, who it was agreed should be appointed Commissioner in that behalf.
ant 9.
The suit wail instituted on Juno 11, 1941, It appears that by companysent of parties a preliminary decree was drawn by the trial companyrt on October 30, 1941, but the validity of this decree was successfully challenged by an appeal to the Lahore High Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 28, 1950, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular First Appeal No.
The two minors are the appellants before us.
Ultimately, when parties did number appear to companye to any settlement about the reports the case was adjourned to December 17, 1943, for objections to be filed by the parties.
Baij Naths case was that the family was undivided and he wanted a partition of his share in the family properties, and so in his plaint he claimed appropriate reliefs in that behalf.
Kaushalya was appointed guardian ad item.
Since the property in dispute was valuable and the parties were unable to make up their minds about the said reports further time was granted to them by the companyrt to companysider the matter.
It further appears that after remand parties again came together and by companysent requested the companyrt to pass a preliminary decree once again.
Certain other minor objections were raised by the appellants on the merits but they were also rejected.
On the death of Ghansham Lal pending the Suit his two minor sons Jai Pal and Chandar Mohan were brought on the record as his legal representatives and their mother Mst.
Against this decree an appeal was preferred by the appellants before the High Court of Punjab, and it was urged on their behalf that the preliminary decree was invalid in that at the time of passing the said decree the companyrt had failed to companyply with the mandatory provisions of 0.
This was done on October 15, 1943.
On receipt of the reports the trial companyrt gave time to the parties to companysider the said report which had been explained to them.
343 of 1944.
Pursuant to this preliminary decree the Commissioner submitted his interim report on November 19,1943, and his final report on November 29, 1943.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Tirath Ram, defend ant 4 alone filed objections numberody else did.
In the result the said decree was set aside and the case was remanded for trial.
216 of 1956.
K. Jha, K. P. Bhandari and Harbans Singh, for the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal by special leave arises from a partition suit filed by Baij Nath against his other companyarceners.
Parties wanted time and so the case was adjourned.
Kidar Nath was dead at the time of the suit, and his branch was represented by his five sons Ghansham Lal, Shri Ram, Hari Ram, Tirath Ram and Murari Lal, who were impleaded as defendants 1 to 5 respectively.
The said objections were companysidered by the companyrt in the light of the evidence which had been led and a final decree was drawn on June 21, 1944.
Darya Datt Chawla for respondent Nos.
The several defendants made out pleas in respect of the claims made by Baij Nath, but for the purpose of this appeal it is unnecessary to refer to the said pleas.
February 9.
Baij Nath is the son of Behari Lal and he had four brothers Kidar Nath, Raghunath Sahai, Jagan Nath and Badri Nath.
1 i to iii .
