BHAGWAT SHARAN Vs. PURUSHOTTAM
LAWS(SC)-2020-4-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 03,2020

Bhagwat Sharan Appellant
VERSUS
PURUSHOTTAM Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PRODEEP ROY CHOUDHURY VS. SANDEEP ROY CHOUDHURY [LAWS(DLH)-2022-1-232] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL VS. SRINIWAS [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
WORLD SPORT GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
NYAKI BAGRA VS. OFFICER COMMANDANT [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH GUPTA VS. BECHU SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2021-12-238] [REFERRED TO]
ASSA SINGH VS. SHANTI PARSHAD [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR & 2 ORS. VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION,FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2021-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN LAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM DHANRAJ DEV KISHAN VS. SRINIWAS [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI NARAYAN AGARWAL VS. SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-130] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASAMY GOUNDER VS. CHINNAPILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
SOMASHEKHAR VS. CHANNAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-299] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DEEPAK GUPTA,J. - (1.)One Mangat Ram was a resident of Village Narnaul in Rajasthan. He had four sons viz., Madhav Prashad, Lal Chand, Ram Chand and Umrao Lal. Ram Chand was adopted by one Shri Gauri Mal of Gwalior. Lal Chand had four sons viz., Sri Ram, Hari Ram, Govind and Laxmi Narayan. Madhav Prashad had no issues. Therefore, he adopted Hari Ram, the son of Lal Chand. Ram Chand also had no issues and he adopted Shriram, son of Lal Chand. It is the admitted case of the parties that both Ram Chand and Lal Chand severed connections with the family and had no connection with the property of the family. This left two branches in the family of Mangat Ram, one being Madhav Prashad and his descendants through his son Hari Ram, the other branch consisted of Umrao Lal and his three sons viz., Brij Mohan, Rameshwar and Radha Krishan. The plaintiff Bhagwat Sharan, who filed the suit is the son of Radha Krishan and grandson of Umrao Lal.
(2.)The above facts are not disputed. The parties are also ad idem that Madhav Prashad shifted from his native village and came to Ashok Nagar, about 70 years prior to the filing of the suit. The suit was filed in 1988. Thus, Madhav Prashad must have shifted in or around 1918. It is also not disputed that Madhav Prashad started working as munshi of the then zamindar of the area and was thereafter known as munshi Madhav Prashad. The dispute basically starts hereinafter. The plaintiff claims that his grandfather Umrao Lal also came to Ashok Nagar at about the same time and started doing grain business. Thereafter, Madhav Prashad left the work of munshi and both the brothers started grain business in the name of "Munshi Madhav Prashad", by setting up a shop. The case of the plaintiff is that both Madhav Prashad andUmrao Lal lived together and carried on the business jointly and purchased various properties described in para 9 of the plaint. Six properties comprise of six different houses. The properties at para 9(2) comprised of various agricultural lands in different villages. The case of the plaintiff is that all these houses have been constructed jointly by Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal, and Madhav Prashad being the elder brother was the karta and was running the joint family in this capacity. It was further alleged in the plaint that Madhav Prashad being the karta managed to get some of the joint family property recorded in his own name. It was also alleged that after the death of Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal, Hari Ram, adopted son of Madhav Prashad (who had died by the time the suit was filed in 1988) was the karta of the joint Hindu family and in this capacity some of the properties of the Joint Hindu Family were recorded in his name.
(3.)It is not disputed that Madhav Prashad died some time in the year 1935, Umrao Singh died some time in 1941-42 and Hari Ram died in the year 1978.
;


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