MAUJI LAL Vs. JAGNANDAN RAM
LAWS(ALL)-1952-1-13
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 16,1952

MAUJI LAL Appellant
VERSUS
JAGNANDAN RAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PANDURANG V. ISHWAR [REFERRED TO]
YESHVANTA BIN BALA GAEKWAD VS. ANTU BIN NAVAJI SALUNKE [REFERRED TO]
RAMRATANLAL VS. GANGOTRI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RANGASAMI GOUNDEN VS. NACHIAPPA GOUNDEN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)SRIMATI Kishan Dei, succeeding to the property in suit as a limited owner either in the capacity of a widow of Ram Swarup or as a mother of Parshottam, her son, remarried Har Narain and later she and Jai Karan executed a deed which ostensibly is a combination of a deed of surrender by her in favour of Jai Karan and a deed of gift by both Jai Karan and herself to Mauji Ram, son of Har Narain, her second husband. Jagbandhan sued Kishan Dei, defendant 1, Mauji Ram, defendant 2, Mahesh Earn, son of Jai Karan, defendant 3, and Hanuman Prasad, brother of the plaintiff, defendant 4, for an injunction against defendants 1 to 3 preventing them from interfering with his possession of the property in suit, it being alleged that he was in possession as a survivor of the joint family which originally consisted of Beni Prasad and Ram Lal, brothers, who reunited after there had been a partition between them and their other four brothers. The allegation of Ram Lal and Beni Prasad reuniting to form a joint family was not accepted by the Courts below. The alternative case of Jagbandhan was that the composite deed of surrender and gift executed by Kishan Dei and Jai Karan was not binding on him after the death of Kishan Dei, in case it be held that Beni Prasad and Ram Lal had separated and did not reunite. Both the Courts held that this deed was not binding on Jagbandhan after the death of kishan Dei. Mauji Ram, therefore, filed this appeal against this decree.
(2.)JAGBANDHAN had also claimed in the suit ownership of house No. 3 in list 'c' attached to the plaint on the ground that he had built it fifteen or sixteen years back. He also claimed Rs. 500 which he had incurred in meeting the ex-penses in connection with two suits instituted by Kishan dei and in depositing rs. 300 which she was ordered to deposit under a decree of the Court. These two claims were disallowed. The claim for the house was disallowed on the ground that a decision in a previous suit between Kishan Dei and Hanuman Prasad, defendant 4, brother of jagbandhan plaintiff, operated as res judicata. The claim for Rs. 500 was disallowed on the hading that the claim was made after the expiry of the necessary limitation. Jagbandhan has preferred second Appeal No. 258 of 1948 against the decree disallowing his claim with respect to these two items.
(3.)I am of opinion that both the appeals should fail.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.