VIDFYAYA BAI Vs. LAL NARAYANDAS
LAWS(MPH)-1969-8-11
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on August 02,1969

VIDFYAYA BAI Appellant
VERSUS
LAL NARAYANDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NAIK J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendants.
(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff-respondent was for accounts of profits or for compensation for use and occupation by the defendants of what he alleged was the joint property of the parties. Initially, the claim was laid for the years 1955-56 to 1959-60 on the allegation that the plaintiff had been excluded by the defendants from joint possession of the suit property since about 1-5-1947, to the extent of his half share therein, and that though the plaintiff had demanded accounts of the profits several times, the defendants refused to render accounts or to pay his share of the profits. Later, on or about 1-7-1965, the plaint was amended to include accounts and profits for the period of the pendency of the suit, viz., for the years 1960-61 to 1964-65. The trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 2,750 /- for the years 1955-56 to 1959'60, It disallowed the claim for the later years because, in its opinion, the suit must be decided on the cause* of- action as existing on the date of the suit. Both the parties appealed. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed compensation for all the years as claimed, viz, for the years 1955-56 to 1964-65. The appeal of the defendants was dismissed. The suit property consists of cultivable land, a house and certain number of mango trees.
(3.) IN this second appeal, various contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants ; but I need not discuss them in detail now, in view of the fact that the case is being remanded to the trial Court for a fresh trial. The main question that was debated before me was whether a suit by co-sharer for accounts or for compensation against another co-sharer lies ; and, if so, under what circumstances. After the point had been debated, both the parties agreed that as the law had been misconceived by the parties, it would be in the interest of justice that the case was remanded for a fresh trial so that the parties could, if so advised, bring on record relevant evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties prayed that the Court may express its opinion on the abstract question of law as aforesaid so that the parties could be guided by it in laying their claims and in leading evidence in accordance with it. The legal relationship between co-owners is not regulated by any statute. It is governed byjudicial decisions, and the principles laid down by judicial decisions are based on the principle of equity, justice and good conscience.;


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