B. Mukherji, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by Kanailal Mondal, the sole defendant in a suit for partition and accounting, which was raised on August 5, 1952, by his younger brother Dhirendra Nath Mondal, now the sole respondent before us, and which a learned subordinate judge, 24-Paraganas, decreed in a preliminary form on September 12, 1959.
(2.) The grievence of the appellant is that the preliminary decree so entered does not include the joint family properties comprising a house and three specified sums of money set out below : 1. The house at 1/4/E Kashi Nath Datta Road, Cossipore. 2. A sum of Rs. 2,799.25 paise in the savings account of Lloyds Bank left by the father of both, Lalit Mohan Mondal, who died on December 10, 1950. 3. A sum of Rs. 205.82 paise or thereabouts (Rs. 205-13as.-3 pies in terms of the old currency) similarly left in deposit by their deceased father in the savings account of the United Bank of India, Kidderpore branch. 4. A sum of Rs. 212.25 paise lying deposit with the authorities of the Orphangunge Market at Kidderpore. Mr. Dev, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has addressed us only on this point and on no other.
(3.) The Cossipore house is taken up first. Exhibit A is the certified copy of the relative sale deed from which it appears inter alia that this house in controversy was purchased by the respondent Dhirendra Nath Mondal on March 11, 1940, from the then owner, one Manmatha Nath Bhattacharya, for the consideration of Rs. 5,999. A sale as this was preceded by a bainanama, an agreement for sale, on January 31, 1940, when Lalit, the father of the two litigating brothers, had paid, and the vendor Manmatha had received a sum of Rs. 101 by way of earnest. The balance of Rs. 5,898 purporting to have been paid by the respondent Dhirendra on March 11, 1940, "in full satisfaction of the entire consideration money" agreed upon, the sale deed came to be executed. In other words, whereas the agreement for sale was between the father (Lalit) and the vendor, the sale deed was between the son (Dhirendra) and the same vendor. Not that any illegality lurks here. It is only a factual statement of the true position as recited in the sale deed itself and as admitted by Dhirendra himself in his cross-examination.;