BhagwanDayal vs
Mst. Reoti Devi on 4 September, 1961
Defendant
(defendant here) in his written statement alleges that the Lachhman Prasad
family is divided, that Kashi Ram started a business in Agra only with the help
of personal means and bought property with the proceeds, which after the Death
of Jwala Prasad two brothers, RaghubarDayal and BhagwanDayal (complainant),
acquired his property under a will written by him, that jointly they acquired
other properties in the income of the business started by Jwala Prasad, and
that afterwards. in the death of RaghubarDayal the defendant was successful in
the benefits of RaghubarDayal and that he was entitled to an equitable share in
the assets of Schedule B, C and D and the plaintiff. He also appealed to the
Tax Court decision in Case No. res judicata about the whole application of the
plaintiff. The case was remanded for trial by the Public Judge, Agra, and the
learned Judge delivered the following: (1) the judgment and the judgment of the
Income Tribunal by Suit No. 15 of 1939 served as res judicata in the question
of the defendant's title. only about part of the share he wants in MauzaChaoli;
(2) there was a big family split, with the fact that Kashi Ram, RaghubarDayal
and BhagwanDayal were separate members of a joint family; (3) there was no
meeting between the said members; (4) Kashi Ram had officially given an
inheritance to his two nieces and nephews under a will; and (5) there was a
reunion between RaghubarDayal and BhagwanDayal and on the death of
RaghubarDayal, BhagwanDayal found his interest in the property of the
appellant's schedule for survival. Defendant preferred the appeal of this
decision to the High Court; and the plaintiff has preferred the opposite
objection to his claim which was rejected by the Community Judge. The learned
Judge, although for various reasons, agreed with Agarwala, J. Emphumela's
decision, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's
objections: the plaintiff's case. was dismissed at all costs Defendant Reoti
Devi filed Claim No. 15 of 1939 in the Tax Court to obtain his share of the
Village Chaoli profit against BhagwanDayal about 1343, 1344 and 1345 Fasli on
the grounds that he was a colleague. ParticipantsAs the respondent raised the
title deed, the Income Tribunal filed a motion on the subpoena that was raised
in the claim and referred the same to the civil court for a decision under Section
271 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). of the
appeal here, and the effect that the Income Court has ruled on the basis of the
findings of the defendant's consent here. Leard Attorney-General argued that
the decision of Suit No. 15 of 1939 we will not act as res judicata in a case
that exists for two reasons, namely, (1) in a previous case, the title deed was
decided by a civil court and Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was
conditionally drawn up; and, as that court had no jurisdiction to hear the
present case, a decision in which it would not act as a res judicata; (2) Even
if the first case is to be considered a decision of the Revenue Court, that
court had no special jurisdiction to decide the case and any decision in it
would not serve as a judgment in the existing decision for the same reason. .
Defendant's attorney AV ViswanathaSastri, the defendant's attorney, argued
that, although the title deed was decided by the civil court, the final
decision was up to the Tax Court, that the matter. The current case was within
the special jurisdiction of that court and that the current case is not being
considered. Court, it does not make sense that the relief sought in civil
courts may not be the same as that of the Income Court which would have agreed
to admit a case established under Chapter 14 defendant acknowledges that the
plaintiff did not obtain about the copyright and submit the record to a
competent civil court for a decision on the matter only. The civil court, after
reorganizing the matter, if necessary, will decide on the matter only and
return the record and receipt of the matter to the Revenue Court sent to it.
The decision also gives rise to the legal impression that a single family with
its own branches or branches can be commercially viable, and that only two or
more members from different branches or one branch or the same branch cannot do
so. the unit also cannot acquire property through incidents of joint Hindu
family property. The Division Bench of the Madras Supreme Court explained the
same theme in the Official Official v. NeelambalAmmal 1933 65 MLJ 798 also came
to the conclusion that it is not possible for two members of a separate Hindu
family to deal with property acquired in that way. how to emphasize the
occurrence of shared family property events and their descendants. Judicial
Committee in JogeswarNarainDeo v. Ram ChundDutt 1896 LR 23 IA 37 explicitly
ruled that "the principle of coexistence is unknown in the Hindu law
except in the case of the joint property of an undivided Hindu family governed
by the Mitakshara law under that law survives.
0 Comments