Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

grandson, respectively, of Babu Lal come to the court with the allegation that the shop in dispute was the joint ancestral property of Babulal and his elder brother Har Narain, it having devolved upon them on the death of Smt. Reoti Devi, their mother. It was further alleged that the shop in question was joint property of Smt. Reoti Devi's father Debi Das and her uncle Angan Lal, It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the elder brother Har Narain, was a very clever person, while Babula! was a simple and easy going person and it was Har Narain, who cleverly manipulated transactions in order to claim the whole of the shop for himself by first fabricating a sale deed dated 1876-1916 as having been executed by Smt. Reoti Devi, conveying half share in shop in dispute, and then a will allegedly executed by Smt. Reoti Devi on 2-5-1927 bequeathing the other half of the shop to him. The plaintiffs definitely alleged in the plaint that Smt. Reoti Devi did not execute either of these two documents and even if she executed them, she having no right or authority for conveying the property in dispute, which was ancestral and joint property of the parties, neither the sale deed nor the will affected the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then alleged that at first Har-narain was managing the properties in dispute and realising rent and after his death his son Ram Swarup managed the properties but Babulal was being paid his share of profits by them. It was further alleged that after the death of Ram Swarup his widow Smt. Atar Devi and her sons Om Prakash, Prahlad and Lalla, who were the defendants, refused to pay the share of profits to the plaintiffs and refused to recognize that the latter were co-sharers and having right in the shop in dispute and on a demand having been made by the plaintiffs for rendering accounts and for partitioning the shop they refused, hence the suit for partition of their moiety share in the shop in dispute and for rendition of accounts.

17. The more important question which requires our consideration is whether there has been ouster of the plaintiffs as co-sharers and the defendants by their adverse possession have prescribed a title in themselves to the whole of the shop in dispute. The learned counsel for the defendants-appellants laid great emphasis on the fact that the name of Harnarain was mutated in the Municipal papers and after his death that of his son Ram Swarup and then that of Smt. Atar Devi and submitted that these long standing continuous entries in the Municipal papers clearly show that Babulal and Ms branch was completely excluded. The learned counsel reinforced this submission of his by relying upon a number of rent notes executed by the tenants of the shop in dispute in the name of Harnarain. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that for all these years it was Harnarain or his branch who realised the rent from the tenants of the shop in dispute, the latter having attorned to them and not to Babulal or the members of his branch. The circumstances of the registration of the sale deed dated 18-6-1916 under the Indian Registration Act was also pressed into service operating as constructive notice to Babulal and his heirs of the assertion of title by Harnarain and his heirs to the exclusive ownership of the shop in dispute. It was contended that the evidence furnished by the conduct of the parties for a long number of years corroborated by documentary evidence comprising mutation of names in Municipal registers, execution of rent notes and realisation and payment of rent well amount to ouster of Babulal and his branch assuming that they were co-sharers. Much case law was also cited before us by the learned counsel for the respective parties on this question. We need not encumber this judgment by noticing all the cases cited before us as it appears to us the law now is well settled and crystallized by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court The latest case which was brought to our notice is the case of Shambhu Prasad Singh v. Mst. Phool Kumari, (AIR 1971 SC 1337) The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in para 17 of the reported judgment at page 1345 have, summarised the law. They observed:--

"On the question of adverse possession by a co-sharer against another co-sharer, the law is fairly well settled. As between co-sharers, the possession of one co-sharer is in law the possession of all co-sharers. Therefore to constitute adverse possession, ouster of the non-possessing co-sharer has to be made out. As between them therefore there must be evidence of open assertion of a hostile title coupled with, exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other."

19. The law as we understand, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, is that merely exclusive possession by one co-sharer even though he enjoys all the profits will not amount to an ouster of the other co-sharer not in possession unless there was evidence to establish that the co-sharer in possession had asserted open hostile title and based his exclusive possession thereon. We have, therefore, to find out from the evidence on record in the instant case whether Harnarain had at any stage or his heirs at any stage had made any open assertion of hostile title and claimed on that basis that they were in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute. It should be borne in mind in this connection that Harnarain was the elder brother. Babulal, it Is the common case of the parties, was a sort of gentleman at large and an easy going fellow, who did not care about the affairs of management of the family property. If in this circumstance Harnarain actually managed the family properties, got his name mutated in the Municipal records realised rents having procured rent notes in his favour from the tenants, it would not have created an impression on the mind of Babulal and the members of his branch that Harnarain was in exclusive possession, and enjoyed the profits on the basis of any hostile title or on the assertion of any hostile title. It is not unusual to find in Hindu joint families the name of the elder member being entered in official records and third persons dealing with him as the owner of the property. Such a conduct on the part of the eldest member of the family has never been regarded by the junior members of the family as assertion of any hostile title to the exclusion of all other members of the family. It has come in evidence in the instant case that some time even rent was realised by Shri Bhagwan, one of the plaintiffs. The own witness of the defendants Brijmohan in his statement said that Harnarain used to make monthly payment to Babulal. Mo explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on behalf of the defendants as to in what connection the payments were being made. A suggestion was made by their learned counsel that regular monthly payments were made to Babulal under the arrangement evidenced by the will Ext. A-3. This explanation appears to us devoid of all force. The arrangement evidenced by Ext. A-3 the will, is for payment of maintenance of Rs. 15 to Babulal's wife Smt. Prag Devi and that arrangement was to come in force obviously after the death of Babulal who died comparatively at a younger age. Brijmohan defendants' witness, definitely asserted that the regular payments were made to Babulal. It is thus clear that those payments must have been nothing but the payments of the share of profits or the rental income from the family properties including the shop in dispute. Shanker Lal, a tenant in the shop in dispute, was produced as a witness by the plaintiffs. He stated that he paid rent some time to Shri Bhagwan son of Babulal also. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit hie testimony. The plaintiff Shri Bhagwan, who appeared as a witness, also asserted that he used to receive his share of profits from Harnarain. This statement of his has not been challenged in cross-examination. We think, what we have mentioned above, without anything more in evidence, is sufficient to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the court below on the issue of adverse possession and ouster is a good finding not liable to be interfered in this appeal