S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs challenges a judgment and decree of alearned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.643/1966 dated 07.06.1974. Theimpugned judgment dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for partition, declaration andrendition of accounts.
(2.) THE undisputed facts emerging from the pleadings are that Mare Singh, sonof Pat Ram had six children " three sons (Bharat Singh, first defendant; OmMittar, second defendant and Om Prakash, who predeceased Mare Singh) and threedaughters (Chanderwati, mother of the Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and wife of thesixth plaintiff; Kaushalya Devi, mother of third defendant in the suit andVidyawati, mother of the fourth defendant in the suit) . Mare Singh left behinda large estate, comprising several properties, including four houses " two inVillage Nangal Raya and two in Mohalla Tokriwalan, Pul Mithai, Delhi andconsiderable agricultural land within Village Nangal Raya. The plaintiffs, legalrepresentatives of deceased Chanderwati laid claim to 1/5th share of the entireestate of Mare Singh, alleging that Chanderwati, his deceased daughter wasentitled to that share of his estate. They also claimed that alienation made tothe fifth defendant " who was impleaded during the proceedings " was not bindingand that the property was one of the assets mentioned in the suit, sold by thesecond defendant Om Mittar. The defendants, i.e. the first two defendants -Bharat Singh and Om Mittar shall be referred to by their names; likewiseChanderwati, mother of the first five plaintiffs and wife of the sixth plaintiffwould be referred to by her name.
(3.) THE plaintiffs sought to argue that by customary law applicable to their community, the married daughter could claim a share in the coparcenary equal to that of the sons, and other male coparceners. Bharat Singh and Om Mittar filed separate written statements. Both of them denied that Chanderwati had any share on the ground that she had relinquished her share of 1/5th of the 1/3rd (falling to Mare Singh on notional partition before his death) of the coparcenary property. It was argued that sometime in March 1961, they had settled with Chanderwati and agreed to pay her money as well as "bhat", i.e. consideration or gift at the time of festivals and on the occasion of marriage etc. in her family. Om Mittar stated that a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - had been paid at the time of settlement. Bharat Singh only stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - was paid as "bhat" to Chanderwati on the occasion of her daughter's marriage. In this state of pleadings, the parties went to trial; the suit was filedbefore the Sub -Judge, First Class, Delhi. After the constitution of this Court,the suit was transferred to its file. Issues had been framed earlier, but weresubsequently amended on application of Order XIV Rule 7 CPC. The Court struck asmany as 15 issues. During the trial, 5 issues (Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) weregiven up. After considering the matter, learned Single Judge summarized thepoints for decision as follows: "(a) Whether the parties were governed in matters of succession by Hindu Law or custom? (b) Whether there was any relinquishment by Chander Wati of her share in the estate left by Mare Singh on receipt of consideration in the form of money etc. and the promise of "Bhat" being given at the weddings of her children by the two surviving brothers, Bharat Singh and Om Mitter? (c) If there was no relinquishment how is the estate of Mare Singh to be divided - ;