Prior private partition proved by documentary evidence defeated later claim to jointness, partition and mesne profits.

A prior private partition of joint family property was found proved through cumulative documentary and circumstantial evidence, including sale deeds, rent receipts and other contemporaneous transactions showing long separate enjoyment by different branches. Recitals referring to amicable partition and metes-and-bounds division were treated as weighty admissions, while the oral evidence of continuing jointness was found unreliable. On that basis, properties in Schedules 3 and 4 were held not liable to partition: Schedule 3 was shown to be in the defendants' long exclusive possession, and Schedule 4 had been acquired after the partition. The related claim for mesne profits also failed, and the suit for partition was rejected in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the parties had already effected a private partition of the joint family properties before the suit, as claimed by the defendants; (ii) whether the properties in Schedules 3 and 4 could still be treated as liable to partition and mesne profits after such partition.

Issue (i): Whether the parties had already effected a private partition of the joint family properties before the suit, as claimed by the defendants.

Analysis: The documentary evidence, including sale deeds, rehan deeds, rent receipts and other contemporaneous transactions, showed that different branches had been dealing with their properties separately for a long time. Clear recitals in several sale deeds referred to amicable partition and separate enjoyment by metes and bounds. These admissions, though not conclusive by themselves, were relevant and weighty circumstances. The oral evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case of continued jointness was found unreliable and incompetent, while the defendants' evidence, read with the documentary materials and the surrounding probabilities, supported the existence of an earlier private partition.

Conclusion: The prior partition pleaded by the defendants was proved, and the plaintiffs' case of a subsisting joint family and a later separation in 1961 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the properties in Schedules 3 and 4 could still be treated as liable to partition and mesne profits after such partition.

Analysis: Schedule 3 lands were shown to have remained in the exclusive possession of the defendants for many years, with rent records and the Section 145 proceeding supporting that possession. The plaintiffs failed to prove joint possession or a better title after the proved partition, and the long, open and exclusive possession of the defendants also supported their independent claim. Schedule 4 properties were acquired in the name of defendant No. 8 after the established partition, and therefore did not form part of any divisible joint family estate. In view of these findings, the claim for mesne profits also could not survive.

Conclusion: Schedules 3 and 4 were not liable to partition, and the claim for mesne profits was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The suit for partition failed in entirety because the defendants established an earlier private partition and the plaintiffs could not prove any continuing joint right in the disputed properties.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for partition, where an earlier private partition is proved by cumulative documentary and circumstantial evidence, admissions in contemporaneous transactions and long separate dealing with the properties may defeat a later claim of jointness, and property acquired or exclusively possessed after such partition is not liable to partition.

---