RAM PROTAP CHAMPIA Vs. DURGA PROSAD CHAMPIA
LAWS(BOM)-1925-10-8
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 20,1925

RAM PROTAP CHAMPIA Appellant
VERSUS
DURGA PROSAD CHAMPIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Blanesburgh, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is from an order of the High Court of Judicature a Fort William in Bengal, exercising appellate jurisdiction and in effect affirming an order made by Mr. Justice Greaves, sitting in the exercise of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Court. Both were orders propounded in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership, and their result was to set aside an award of arbitrators so far as that award affected to deal with matters in question in the suit. The appellant upholds the award and asks that the orders setting it aside be discharged.
(2.) THE circumstances are somewhat involved and, in detail, elaborate. It will be possible, however, as their Lordships hope, to state the facts in a summary form without endangering such accuracy as is requisite for the purposes of their judgment. The disputants are descendants of one Nandaram Chamria, and their disputes are to a large extent, although not altogether traceable to questions concering the division of the estate of one of his sons-Hardatroy Chamria-whose position in the family with his relationship to the parties before the Board appears in the following pedigree, taken from the judgment of Mr. Justice Mookerjee in the Appeal Court. Nandram Chamria | | | Gorakhram Hardatory Chamria M. Annardeyi | | | | | | |Ramprotap Amlokchand Durgaprosad Radkukissen Motilal(Plaintiff) M. Surji | (adopts Keahabdeo) Keshabdeo The suit No. 120 of 1922, related to a business of brokers and bankars carried on under style of Hardatroy Chamria and Company. The business originally had been started by Hardatroy alone. Some years later he took into it, first as an assistant, then as a partner, his nephew, the plaintiff and present appeallant, Ram Protap Chamria. The appellant's share as a partner was, in its origin, two annas; subsequently, it became one of five annas. Later still, the appellant's brother, Amlokchand, was admitted a partner with a two annas' share. He died, however, in 1911, and after his death the business was carried on by Hardatroy and the appellant together. Hardatroy being treated as possessed of an eleven annas' share and the appellant of the remaining share of five annas. By an indenture dated October 1, 1916, and made between Hardatroy and the appellant, it was agreed that this partnership should continue for twenty years There is no furtker reference in the appellant's plaint to the two annas' share which belonged to Amlokchand at the time of his death. The appellant appears to treat it as merged in the shares of himself and Hardatroy. This position, however, is not accepted by the representative of Amlokchand's estate, as will later appear.
(3.) AMLOKCHAND left no issue but he was survived by his wife, the respondent, Musammat Surji, and on her expressing a desire to adopt as a son to her deceased husband Hardatroy's youngest son Motilal, Hardatroy, so it was alleged by the appellant, agreed with the appellant's consent, to admit Motilal to the firm setting aside for his benefit a two annas' share out of his own share of eleven annas. This arrangement, however, if it became effective at all, was almost immediately superseded by an agreement in writing dated November 16,1916, to which Hardatroy, his three sons, the appellant and Musammat Surji were privy or parties and under which in effect Hardatroy retired from the firm and it was agreed that the business should, as from January 1, 1917, belong in stated shares to the appellant, to the son to be taken in adoption by Musammat Surji, and to the three sons of Hardatroy, viz, Durga Prasad, Radhakissen and Motilal-with a variation in interest as between these three, if Motilal proved to be the son to be taken in adoption to Amolakehand as contemplated. By an agreement of even date entered into by Mussammat Annardeyi, Hardatroy's wife, and his three sons, but to which the appellant was not a party, an arrangement was embodied with reference to the division of his property on the death of Hardatroy, an event then apparently regarded as imminent. The property, dealt with by this agreement in terms extends to Hardatroy's interest in the partnership, although that interest appears to have been disposed of, and differently, by the agreement already set forth, It is stated in this second agreement that it had become necessary in order to settle the disputes which had arisen regarding the rights of Durga Prasad who, unlike each of his younger brothers, was an adopted son and not a natural son of Hardatroy.;


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