AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1903 (4) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Girdhari Lall and Ladhuram. Girdhari Lall's widow, Rukhmabai (who is the first respondent in the present appeal and will hereafter be referred to as the respondent), says she was at Ellichpur at the time of the separation and heard there was a document about their partition, and that it had been prepared by a panchayat, but she does not know what has become of that document. And there is no further evidence whether any such document was signed, or what were the contents of it, if any such document there were. There is also no evidence that Ladhuram drew out his share of the family property, or any part of it, and the fair inference would seem to be that he left it in the family shop, which continued to be carried on by Girdhari Lall u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1887, but he seems to have been more studious of religious observances than of the care of the business, and he did not in fact give much attention to the business at any time, though there are entries in his handwriting in the books before the division in 1889, and even in the respondent's books after the division. It should be mentioned that expenses connected with Ladhuram's funeral ceremonies were paid out of the moneys of the business, and by agreement a sum of Rs. 4000 was allowed at the time of the division in 1889 for the marriage expenses of Girdhari Lall's daughter. 3. In the present suit the appellant claims, as the survivor of a joint family, consisting of his uncle Girdhari Lall and himself, to be sole owner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween the present appellant and his mother and Girdhari Lall some years before the latter died; so the effect of this reunion must be taken as cancelling the first division between them. The learned judge also held that the division in 1889 was made as a family arrangement only, and without the consent of the appellant, who was, therefore, at liberty to impeach it. He therefore made a decree in the appellant's favour. Their Lordships are of opinion that the learned judge's view as to the reunion after the death of Ladhuram cannot be supported, and, indeed, it was not maintained by the appellant's counsel. A reunion in estate properly so called can only take place between persons who were parties to the original partition. This a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al agreement between Girdhari Lall and Ladhuram than on a consideration of evidence. Their Lordships, therefore, think it will be more satisfactory for them to state their own reasons for agreeing with the Judicial Commissioner. There is no doubt some evidence both of a continued union between Girdhari Lall and Ladhuram and against it. On the one hand, the absence of any proof of an actual division of property between Girdhari Lall and Ladhuram and the fact of the former having taken the appellant and his mother back to the ancestral home are evidence of the two brothers having agreed to remain united. On the other hand, the fact of Ladhuram having sent his wife and child to reside at Bhorteda and himself leaving the ancestral home (though ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned Commissioner's finding is based, and they agree with him as to the result of it. They need not, therefore, repeat what he has said. They find that the plaintiff was of age, and was present and took an active part in the arrangement then made, and that a careful and exact division was made of the assets and liabilities of the former firm between the two new firms. There is evidence also that the house in which the appellant and respondent resided was divided, the respondent taking the northern portion and the appellant and his mother the southern portion; but it is not quite clear to what period the division should be referred. Their Lordships also think that the Judicial Commissioner was right in not attaching any importance ....