Skip to content


Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Pyare Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Property
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939All681
AppellantHira Lal and ors.
RespondentPyare Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....was joint, that his share was one-third and1 that he had been excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family property by the defendants. the relation of the parties will appear from the following pedigree:bhola nath|----------------------------------------| | |saheb ram= khawani ram mohan lalmt. hardei | || chiranji lal hira laldurga prasad= deft. 2 deft. 1mt. champa devi | |(widow) eatau lal lakshmi chandra| deft. 3 deft. 6deft. 2 party | || --------------------- || | | |pyare lal chandra kiran hari shanker |(adopted son) deft. 4 deft. 5 |plaintiff. |||------------------| |ram saran chandradefendant 7 bhandefendant 82. durga prasad died on 15th august 1921. he left a will under which he authorized his widow, mt. champa devi, to adopt a son. she accordingly adopted the plaintiff' in.....
Judgment:

Ganga Nath, J.

1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff, respondent for partition of the property described in the plaint and for accounts from 16th August 1921 to the date of the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the family was joint, that his share was one-third and1 that he had been excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family property by the defendants. The relation of the parties will appear from the following pedigree:

BHOLA NATH|----------------------------------------| | |Saheb Ram= Khawani Ram Mohan LalMt. Hardei | || Chiranji Lal Hira LalDurga Prasad= Deft. 2 Deft. 1Mt. Champa Devi | |(widow) Eatau Lal Lakshmi Chandra| Deft. 3 Deft. 6Deft. 2 party | || --------------------- || | | |Pyare Lal Chandra Kiran Hari Shanker |(adopted son) Deft. 4 Deft. 5 |Plaintiff. |||------------------| |Ram Saran ChandraDefendant 7 BhanDefendant 8

2. Durga Prasad died on 15th August 1921. He left a will under which he authorized his widow, Mt. Champa Devi, to adopt a son. She accordingly adopted the plaintiff' in February 1924. In 1924 a suit was-brought by Hira Lal for a declaration that the plaintiff had not been adopted by Mt. Champa Devi and that the adoption was invalid. The suit was ultimately dismissed in 1928 by this Court. The plaintiff became major on 11th July 1932. He brought the present suit on 11th August 1933. The defendants admitted the plaintiff's share, but contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any accounts. The learned Civil Judge has found that the plaintiff has been entirely excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family property and was entitled to accounts from February 1924 till the date when the receiver took charge of the joint family property. There is no dispute about the partition of the property, as the parties themselves prepared lots, which were allotted to them according to their choice. The only dispute is about the liability of the defendants to render accounts. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the defendants are not liable to render any account. As a general rule, no coparcenar is entitled to call upon the manager to account for his past dealings with the joint family property, unless he establishes fraud, misappropriation or improper conversion. But a coparcener who in entirely excluded from enjoyment of the family property is entitled to an account of the income derived from the family property and to have his share of the income ascertained and paid to him. In other words, he is entitled to what are called mesne profits. This proposition is based on the decision in Raja Venkata Rao v. Court of Wards (1878-80) 2 Mad. 128 and Appa Rao v. Court of Wards (1882) 5 Mad. 236. There their Lordships of the Privy Council warded a decree for mesne profits from the time of his dispossession to a coparcener who had been dispossessed from the joint family property. In order to ascertain the amount of mesne profits it is necessary to go into accounts of the income of the family property, and thus a coparcener who is entirely excluded from enjoyment of the joint family property becomes entitled to an account from the coparceners who remained in possession of it.

3. The question that remains for determination therefore is whether the plaintiff was entirely excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family property and, if so, when. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiff was not excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family property inasmuch as his mother, who was his natural guardian during the period of his minority, received certain sums of money from 3rd August 1922 to 23rd November 1932. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence and held that the plaintiff was entirely excluded from the enjoyment of the family property and the judgment concluded. This being so, he is entitled to an account of the income of the property. There is no force in this appeal. It in therefore ordered that it be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //