- (1.) 1. This is an appeal from decision of Shri D. Guha Majumdar the learned Subordinate Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 117 of 1969 dated 28.2.1977. That was a suit for partition between the descendants of one Pashupati Mondal of No. 11, Chingrighata Lane, Police Station, Entally, whose relationship with one another may be described below by the following genealogical table:- The version of the plaintiff-respondents appears to be the following : "Pashupati Mondal died on 1-3-32 leaving behind him his widow, Barodamani, three sons, viz., Sharat, Nagendra and Debendra and one daughter viz., Batasi, defendant 1(e) and considerable properties described in Schedule "A" of the plaint. After his death, Sharat became the karta of the joint Hindu Family comprising the three brothers and their mother, with the cash, properties and the profits arising out of the same and the nucleolus of the joint family, sharat acquired considerable properties, some in the name of their mother, some in the name of the brothers and some in the names of their wives. These properties have all been described in schedule "B" of the plaint. Sharat had no child and he left his ⅓rd share in the joint properties by a will to Panchanan (Petitioner-1) the eldest son of Nagendra whom he held in great affection."
(2.) After the death of Sharat on 17-4-44, Nagendra became the karta of the joint family. He as Karta obtained probate of the Will left by Sharat, Panchanan being in possession of his ⅓rd share within the joint property, possessed the sane jointly with the other two co-sharers namely, Nagendra and Debendra, Nagendra as karta of the joint family acquired considerable properties mentioned in Schedule "C" of the plaint with the income and profits of the joint properties.
(3.) After the death of Nagendra which took place on 10-4-60, the surviving brother Debendra became the karta of the joint family. Disputes and dissensions arose during his time and he also disposed of 10 bighas of joint property taking advantage of the fact that the said property was acquired in name of his wife Smt. Kamala, defendant No. 2. Being approached, Debendra refused to give any account of the joint properties or to explain his conduct. Hence, the suit for partition.;