PURNA BAI Vs. RANCHHODDAS
LAWS(APH)-1992-4-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 30,1992

PURNA BAI Appellant
VERSUS
RANCHHODDAS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUTHERSANAM MAISTRI V. NARASIMULU MAISTRI [REFERRED TO]
SELVARAJ V. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
PARBHU LAL V. BHAGWAN [REFERRED TO]
RADHOBA V. ABURAO [REFERRED TO]
LACHMI NARAIN V. MUSADDI LAL [REFERRED TO]
RATNESHWARI NANDAN V. BHAGWATI SARAN [REFERRED TO]
C. SUNDARAM V. RUKMANI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJADUTT V. GANGORI DUTT [REFERRED TO]
VENKATA CHENCHAYYA V. RAMALINGAM [REFERRED TO]
DEWAN CHAND V. JAY PEE FINANCE CORPN. [REFERRED TO]
NAGUBAI AMMAL VS. B SNAMA RAO [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN BHAGWANTRAO GOSAVI BALAJIWALE VS. GOPAL VINAYAK GOSAVI [REFERRED TO]
JAVER CHAND VS. PUKHRAJ SURANA [REFERRED TO]
G NARAYANA RAJU DEAD VS. G CHAMARAJU [REFERRED TO]
AJODHYA PRASAD BHARGAVA VS. BHAWANI SHANKER BHARGAVA [REFERRED TO]
UPPALA SAMBASIVA RAO VS. UPPALA KANAKAMMA [REFERRED TO]
BIYYALA CHINNA NARASAMMA VS. BIYYALA VENKATA NARASI REDDI [REFERRED TO]
GUNNA J KRISHNAN VS. G K RENGACHARI [REFERRED TO]
MARUDANAYAGAM PILLAI VS. SOLA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
MUDANNA VIRAYYA VS. MUDANNA ADENNA [REFERRED TO]
HARIDAS NARAYANDAS BHATIA VS. DEVKUVARBAI MULJI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KAVITHA GOUD VS. NOOKALA SUDARSHAN REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2004-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
R VELLINGIRI VS. R KANNAIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN SURI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
GURNAM SINGH VS. PRITAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-255] [REFERRED TO]
CHEEDELLA RADHAKRISHNA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. RADHAKRISHNAMURTHY AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-176] [REFERRED TO]
PARBATI DEVI JAISWAL VS. KEDAR LAL JAISWAL [LAWS(CAL)-1993-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITHA GOUD VS. NOOKALA SUDARSHAN REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2003-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
OMPRAKASH VS. RAM [LAWS(MPH)-2010-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. NANIBAI WD/O LAXMANRAO VS. VITTHALRAO MAROTIRAO NAVKHARE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-104] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER KAMBOJ VS. VIRENDER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-255] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhaskar Rao, J. - (1.)These two appeals, one preferred by the plaintiffs and the other, by the 9th defendant, arise out of the same judgment, and therefore are disposed of by this common judgment. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the moveable and immoveable properties covered by the plaint schedules.
(2.)The relevant facts in brief are : One Purandas had four sons and one daughter, namely, (i) Ranchhoddas, (ii) Dwarakadas, (in) Motilal, (iv) Babulal and (v) Yoga Bai. Purandas died in 1962. His fourth son, Babulal, pre-deceased Purandas while Dwarakadas, another son, died on 3-5-1966 leaving behind him the plaintiffs wife and two sons. After the death of Purandas, the eldest son, Ranchhod das, was managing the joint family. The family is a business family; the business being run in the name of Purandas Ranchhoddas & Sons. The family has perfume shop at Gulzar house, Hyderabad, and a medical shop at Sultan Bazar. Since the plaintiffs did not wish to continue their joint status with the defendants, they issued a suit notice, Ex.A-15, for division of the joint family properties and having found a negative attitude with the defendants laid the present suit. Respondents 1 to 3 and 10 filed a common written statement contending that it is not true that the plaintiffs and the defendants constitute a joint family, that the plaintiffs have no share in the properties and that they are not entitled to the share claimed, that Purandas having died in 1962 did not leave any properties moveable or immoveable behind him and that it is not true that the 1st defendant managed the family business. Late Purandas during his life time settled his properties and business on his sons and since then the parties have been enjoying their properties separately. Late Purandas started two shops, one at Gulzar house and another at Secunderabad. After some time Purandas allowed his sons, Ranchhoddas, Motilal and Babulal, to manage the business at Gulzar house and Dwarakadas i.e., the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, to manage the business at Secunderabad. Late Purandas in the year 1942 migrated to Burhanpur in Madhya Pradesh. Late Purandas settled his business and properties before migrating to Burhanpur. He also executed a settlement deed to avoid confusion. The three sons that were given the business at Gulzar house effected partition among themselves. Dwarakadas entered into partnership with one Ramanlal and started business under the name and style Purandas Ranchhoddas Agencies at Sultan Bazar and the partnership was dissolved subsequently and Dwarakadas alone continued the business at Sultan Bazar and Secunderabad. On the death of Babulal in the year 1958, his two sons viz. defendants 2 and 6, became partners in the business at Gulzar house and the same was continued upto 1966, that the partnership was reconstituted and the four sons of the first defendant, i.e. D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5, became partners, that on 6-1-1973 this partnership was dissolved and defendants 6, 7 and 8 retired from partnership from 5-11-1972, that a fresh partnership was effected between the remaining partners, that on 24-2-1975 the 4th defendant retired from the partnership and defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 continued the business as before as new partnership, that item No. 1 of the plaint B schedule was purchased in the name of the firm, Purandas Ranchhoddas & Sons, from the income of the said firm, that similarly the land at Ramanthapur shown in the plaint 'B' schedule was purchased from the income of the firm and house was also constructed on that land, that item No. 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule was purchased in the year 1949 from out of the income of the firm and in the partition it fell to the share of the 1st defendant and he reconstructed the same with his own funds, that item No. 4 of the plaint 'B' schedule was purchased by the 3rd defendant for residential purpose out of his income, that item No. 5 of the plaint 'B' schedule was purchased by the 4th defendant in the year 1971 for his residential purposes, that item No. 6 was purchased in the name of the firm in the year 1973 from out of the income of the firm, that item No. 7 was purchased by defendants 1 and 6 in the year 1962 out of their own earnings and that the 1st defendant subsequently relinquished his rights in the said house in favour of the 6th defendant, that item Nos. 8 and 10 in the plaint 'B' schedule do not belong to the defendants and that item No. 9 was purchased by the 6th defendant in the year 1968 with his own funds. It is also alleged that the suit is misconceived, that the suit schedule properties were acquired from the income of the joint family is false, that the properties were acquired by different members with their own earnings and that the suit, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
(3.)The 4th defendant filed a separate written statement reiterating the averments made by defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10.
;


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