TEK BAHADUR BHUJIL Vs. DEBT SINGH BHUJIL
LAWS(SC)-1965-2-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on
February 26,1965
TEK BAHADUR BHUJIL
Appellant
VERSUS
DEBI SINGH BHUJIL
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
B S GOEL VS. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-191] [REFERRED TO]SATYA PAL GUPTA VS. SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
HAREY KRISHNA AGRAWAL VS. JAIRAJ KRISHNA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN JAIN VS. ANUJ JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
NAKKA SRINIVAS AND ANOTHER VS. N YADAGIRI AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-81] [REFERRED]
BUGGA BAI VS. BAKRID KHAN [LAWS(CHH)-2006-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
YASH PAL SAINI VS. PUSHPA SAINI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-367] [REFERRED TO]
BIRMA VS. BHAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. RAGHAV DUBEY [LAWS(PAT)-2017-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
DILLIP GUPTA VS. DEBASHISH PALIT [LAWS(PAT)-2005-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
KALE VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(SC)-1976-1-1] [FOLLOWED]
PARKASH VS. PRITAM SINGH AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2005-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. MANGAL DASS (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-2-187] [REFERRED TO]
POREDDY VENKATA NARISIREDDY (DIED) LRS. VS. MUKKAMALA VENKATA NARASAMMA (DIED) LRS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PYARI AND ORS. VS. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT MAL DHARIWAL VS. SUKHRAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-4-63] [REFFERED TO 26]
RAM LAL AND ORS. VS. SHRI BAJRANG LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-228] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGGAL VS. RANGI LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1985-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN DASS GUPTA VS. STATE & OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-638] [REFERRED TO]
NEERU DHIR VS. KAMAL KISHORE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-345] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEEN SINGH VS. AMIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PARKASH VS. PRITAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH VS. JAGDISH SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
MALTI BAI VS. KHILONA BAHU [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-153] [REFERRED TO (PARA 9) 2.]
RAMESH CHANDRA RAY VS. SMT. NANDITA RAY [LAWS(ORI)-1978-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUKANYA VISWANATHAN VS. M. RATHINAM [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-323] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. HARI KRISHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-123] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KALI VS. JITENDER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAILBEE W/O MOHD KHAJA SAHEB VS. MEHTAB SAHEB S/O SHAIKH GHUDU SAHEB [LAWS(KAR)-2020-10-251] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHAMMAL VS. M. NATARAJNAM [LAWS(MAD)-2001-4-148] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI VS. MUNSHI RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2023-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL VS. MANJIT KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2020-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
BH MUSILI VS. R APPALANAIDU [LAWS(APH)-1999-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL CHANDRA DUTTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1992-8-131] [REFERRED]
SHREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEEPAK VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED]
SANJEEV GUPTA & ORS VS. MANOJ LOHARIA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-291] [REFERRED TO]
HIMANI WALIA VS. HEMANT WALIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI MANGAT RAM AND ANR. VS. SHRI RAM NARAIN GUPTA AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-207] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SINGHAL VS. RAMKATORI DEVI [LAWS(MPH)-2000-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
SOMA OATHAK VS. STATE OF PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2007-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
DHIAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS. MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
CHATTAR SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2017-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH VS. RAM SINGH MAJOR [LAWS(SC)-1995-9-89] [RELIED ON]
G VASANTHA PAI VS. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER LAND REFORMS CHEPAUK MADRAS 5 [LAWS(MAD)-1998-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
A C LAKSHMIPATHY VS. A M CHAKRAPANI REDDIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2000-11-7] [REFERRED]
N. SRINIVAS AND ANOTHER VS. N. YADAGIRI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
BHIMIREDDY MUSILI DIED VS. RONGALI APPALANAIDU [LAWS(APH)-1999-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN KUMAR PANDEY VS. D D C [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA PATITIWARI VS. LALITA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
BAPURAM BORA S/O LT ENA BORA VS. ANIL BORA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDER SETHI VS. INDER MOHAN SETHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-100] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHU VS. SADHU AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-1973-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
LALJI VS. MUS MARIYAM BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2006-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SUD VS. STITCHWELL QUALITEX PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-244] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR JAIN VS. SANJAY KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-111] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. BAL MUKAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-2-94] [REFERRED TO]
SUKUMAR BHOWMIK VS. SUBAL BHOWMIK [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
Budha Narayan Kar VS. Kalinga Keshari Mohanty [LAWS(ORI)-2003-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
TEJPAL SINGH & ORS. VS. KUSHAL PAL SINGH & ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-137] [REFERRED TO]
KISTO CHANDRA MANDAL VS. ANILA BALA DASI [LAWS(PAT)-1967-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWARI DEVI VS. ARVIND KUMAR AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-5-126] [REFERRED TO]
ZEHRO VS. BALBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
R. MUTHULAKSHMI VS. VALLIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-304] [REFERRED TO]
BALAN NAMBIAR M K V VS. SANKARA KURUP T [LAWS(KER)-2013-11-160] [REFERRED TO]
PREMLALL SEAL VS. BASANTI SEAL [LAWS(CAL)-2003-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN SINGH VS. ZILE SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1986-8-7] [REFERRED 7A]
SHASHIKANT NATVARLAL PATEL VS. ARVINDBHAI BHUPATBHAI GOHIL [LAWS(GJH)-2009-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHAL CHOPRA AND ORS. VS. SUNIL CHOPRA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-304] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI. LAKH RAJ KAPOOR VS. SHRI. BAL KISHAN KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-459] [REFERRED TO]
S G MAHABOOB BASHA VS. NAJUMUNNISSA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-429] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT LAL AND OTHERS VS. RAMJI DASS [LAWS(P&H)-1989-7-127] [REFERRED]
GURDEV SINGH VS. KARTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2001-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. SHISH RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2002-5-3] [REFERRD TO]
SATTAR MOHAMMAD CHOUDHARI VS. GUNDAPPA AMABADAS BUKATE [LAWS(SC)-1996-10-88] [RELIED ON]
JAI RAJ SINGH VS. SHANTI KISHAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
MANU GUPTA VS. SUJATA SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-12-174] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAM AND ORS. VS. LUDDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-149] [REFERRED TO]
HARAPADA MONDAL & ORS VS. NISHIKANTA MONDAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
MANIA VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P [LAWS(ALL)-1970-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI PREM LATA MISRA VS. SRIPAT, COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW DIVISION, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1971-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BRAHMANI DEVI AND ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR [LAWS(ALL)-1966-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR VS. IQBAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2003-7-110] [REFERRED]
K G MAL VS. SHAM BEHARI MAL [LAWS(DLH)-1994-7-26] [RELIED )]
JASBIR SINGH BAJAJ VS. GURDEEP SINGH BAJAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2001-9-12] [REFERRED 2.]
SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL AND ANR. VS. MINOR S. RAMESHAM (RAMESHAN) ADOPTED S/O. ALWAR ALIAS RUKMANI AMMAL AND SRINIVASA IYENGER THROUGH NEXT FRIEND AND PROPERTY GUARDIAN C.K.S. RANGANATHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1975-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
MINOR NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN VS. T JAYAPRAKASH [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATACHALAM VS. RAJAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAPPAI VS. LONAPPAN [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-559] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BHARAT CHANDRA ROUL [LAWS(ORI)-1995-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
PREMENDRA KR MITRA VS. AMARENDRA KR MITRA [LAWS(CAL)-2003-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM JEELANI VS. GHULAM SOFL [LAWS(APH)-1996-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
HINCH LAL VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1993-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
PADMAWATI BHALLA VS. MASTER SAHIL AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-137] [REFERRED TO]
AMIRKHAN VS. GHOUSE KHAN [LAWS(MAD)-1983-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
SOSAMMA OOMMAN VS. ANNAMMA SIMON, W/O OMMAN SIMON [LAWS(KER)-2016-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
D. SRINIVASAN VS. D.CHAIRMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-102] [REFERRED TO]
DINA NATH VS. KEWAL KRISHAN [LAWS(J&K)-1990-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
RESHOO VS. JAMAL DAR [LAWS(J&K)-1972-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. SHREENATH @ MUNNALAL [LAWS(MPH)-1996-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1991-3-115] [REFERRED TO]
DALIP SINGH VS. KAPOOR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2000-8-241] [REFERRED]
BANT SINGH VS. LAKHBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU DEVI VS. BISHAN SARUP GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI KUMAR VS. RAVINDRA KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-238] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHEDA BEGAM VS. LAL AHMED KHAN [LAWS(APH)-2009-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI DALPATBHAI MODI VS. BABUBHAI RATANJI MARFATIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
NILKANTH KRISHNARAO APTE VS. RAMCHANDRA KRISHNARAO APTE AND VIRAJ RAMCHANDRA APTE [LAWS(BOM)-1990-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT CHANDRA ROUL VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-9-134] [REFERRED TO]
MYTHILI NALINI VS. KOWMARI [LAWS(KER)-1990-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
S.N.DHARMAN VS. ELUMALAI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-206] [REFERRED TO]
L V SUNDARAM VS. L V KRISHNA IYER DIED [LAWS(MAD)-2001-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNOOTTAM KUZHIYIL VAYALOLI BALAN NAMBIAR VS. THEKKEDATH SANKARA KURUP [LAWS(KER)-2013-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
NAILA ABDUL NAZAR VS. GOPALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. GURUCHARAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH VS. RAM SINGH MAJOR [LAWS(SC)-1995-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO VS. KORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raghubar Dayal, J. -
(1.)This appeal, on certificate issued by the Assam High Court, is by Tek Bahadur Bhujil, brother of Dhanbir Bhujil, respondent No. 2, and uterine brother of Debi Singh Bhujil, respondent No. 1. Their mother was Beli Bhujilini, respondent No. 3, since deceased.
(2.)Respondent No. 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. He alleged in the plaint that he, Tek Bahadur and Dhanbir Bhujil were brothers and belonged to the same joint family centering round their common mother, defendant No. 3, who had come from Nepal about 26 years earlier. 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. Two other business were subsequently started. They were the Indian Sweet-meat House and the Dilkhosh Cabin, at Police Bazaar, Shillong. These businesses were in the name of Dhanbir Bhujil. It was stated that on December 31, 1942, the brothers decided with the consent of the mother to enjoy the properties and the businesses in a certain specified manner. 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. The mother was to enjoy the house property in Shillong Cantonment which had been purchased in her name. It may be mentioned that Dhanbir Bhujil and Beli Bhujilini were pro forma defendants and the real relief was claimed against Tek Bahadur, appellant.
(3.)The appellant contested the suit on various grounds, including the one that all the properties were self-acquired properties of his and that nobody else had any right, title or claim in them. The allegations in the plaint were not admitted and it was specifically stated:
".........the mother was never or is the head of the family as alleged nor were the properties acquired by the family in the name of the defendant No. 1 as alleged in para 2 of the plaint."
Of the issues framed, two issues were:
"(1) 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
(2) Whether there was any division of the properties with separate possession and enjoyment as alleged -
The trial Court decreed the suit against defendant No. 1 holding that the properties in suit were joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant No. 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.
(2.)Respondent No. 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. He alleged in the plaint that he, Tek Bahadur and Dhanbir Bhujil were brothers and belonged to the same joint family centering round their common mother, defendant No. 3, who had come from Nepal about 26 years earlier. 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. Two other business were subsequently started. They were the Indian Sweet-meat House and the Dilkhosh Cabin, at Police Bazaar, Shillong. These businesses were in the name of Dhanbir Bhujil. It was stated that on December 31, 1942, the brothers decided with the consent of the mother to enjoy the properties and the businesses in a certain specified manner. 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. The mother was to enjoy the house property in Shillong Cantonment which had been purchased in her name. It may be mentioned that Dhanbir Bhujil and Beli Bhujilini were pro forma defendants and the real relief was claimed against Tek Bahadur, appellant.
(3.)The appellant contested the suit on various grounds, including the one that all the properties were self-acquired properties of his and that nobody else had any right, title or claim in them. The allegations in the plaint were not admitted and it was specifically stated:
".........the mother was never or is the head of the family as alleged nor were the properties acquired by the family in the name of the defendant No. 1 as alleged in para 2 of the plaint."
Of the issues framed, two issues were:
"(1) 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
(2) Whether there was any division of the properties with separate possession and enjoyment as alleged -
The trial Court decreed the suit against defendant No. 1 holding that the properties in suit were joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant No. 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.