Surinder Singh vs Hardial Singh And Ors on 29 October, 1984
The High Court has not believed the case of the
defendants that there had already been a settlement in respect of
the properties in question in 1942. It at least indicates that even
according to the contesting defendants, some settlement of the
property amongst the members of the family was necessary
which had already taken place earlier i.e. to say existence of
joint property cannot be denied. Once their case of settlement
in respect of the same property having taken place earlier has
been dis-believed, there remain hardly any ground to resist the
claim of the plaintiff for partition and 1/5th share in the
properties. The case of the defendant that after the settlement
the brothers have been residing separately and they have been
carrying on their business separately, hence there remained
nothing which was joint amongst the members of the family
which could be partitioned is rightly held to be untenable.
We find that after appreciation of the evidence the High
Court has arrived at a finding that no such settlement had taken
place in 1942. Learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently urged that Exhibit B-3 is the deed of settlement
which should have been given due weight by the High Court
while considering the evidence. He has also submitted that the
High Court has not taken into account documentary evidence
placed on record, namely Exhibits B-2, B-3, B-4,B-5, B-6 etc.
as well as Ex.B-15 and B-16. He has also placed reliance upon
the decision in Surinder Singh versus Hardial Singh and
others 1985 (1) S.C.C. 91 to the effect that findings of fact
recorded, ignoring the documentary evidence on record is
vitiated. We find that the High Court has considered a number
of documents on record except a few which may not have
been considered necessary to be referred to in the judgment.
The High Court has taken a note of Ex.B-3, the alleged deed of
settlement executed by Purandas in 1957 and has dealt with it in
detail. Referring to the statement of DW-1, the High Court has
taken a note of the fact that according to him B-3 came into
existence since the Government was demanding inspection of
their account books. DW-1 also could not indicate the order of
handing over the shop to him by Purandas prior to 1942. The
settlement was said to be in 1942 and deed is executed in 1957.
Taking the evidence on record as a whole the case of the
defendant of settlement of properties in 1942 and the deed
executed in 1957 have not been believed. We find no good
reason to interfere with that finding of fact which is supported
by evidence and cogent reasons. In so far the other documents,
which according to the appellant have not been considered,
they are some partnership deeds which have been entered into
between different members of the family in different
combinations. It is sought to be established that they have
been running their business separately under different
partnerships. We feel that no such inference can be drawn. In a
family which carries on a number of business, it is quite often
that it is carried out under different names and styles and often
constitutes different companies or partnerships for better
handling of business or to keep it managable or for various
other reasons. It is no proof of separation nor are the letters
which are sought to be relied upon, written to the income-tax
authorities and the assessment orders passed by the income-tax
authorities. It has already come in evidence that even B-3
came into existence since the government wanted to inspect the
account books. Therefore, once the settlement before the suit
for paritition was filed is not accepted by means of a finding
of fact recorded by the High Court, the case of the defendant
falls through.