Supreme Court: The 4-Judges Bench of Mehr Chand Mahajan, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, and Ghulam Hasan*, JJ., held that a party to a partition of joint family property who wants to reopen it on the ground of fraud practised upon him by deliberate suppression of certain property at the time of partition could not be heard to complain of it several years later and be allowed to rescind the partition when the accounts containing the joint family property were easily within his reach and could have been examined by him with ordinary diligence. The Supreme Court thus dismissed the appeal with costs and further, held that appellant failed to prove fraud.
Background
One Ramchandra Dalsaram, died leaving four sons, namely, Kanhaiyalal, Govindlal, Ghanshyamdas and Mohanlal. The family was joint in his lifetime but after his death, Ghanshyamdas filed a suit for partition in 1909 and obtained a decree for separation of his share in 1911. Thereafter, the remaining three brothers continued to be members of the joint Hindu family. In 1911, Govindlal had his share separated by a deed of release and in 1913, he died. Mohanlal in 1934, separated and divided the family property with Kanhaiyalal under a partition deed executed in 1935. The partition deed concluded stating that the two brothers namely, Mohanlal and Kanhaiyalal, owed no joint debts to anybody, and that Mohanlal had no right, title, and interest of any sort in the movable property allotted to Kanhaiyalal. Kanhaiyalal died in 1938, leaving a widow, namely, Hirabai. Mohanlal alleged that Hirabai was of unsound mind and thus moved the District Judge at Poona in 1939, to have Hirabai adjudged as a lunatic under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 and for the appointment of Court Nazir as the Manager of the estate in her possession. On 22-8-1939, Hirabai was declared a lunatic, and the Court Nazir was appointed as Manager of her estate and continued to manage the same till her death.
Mohanlal filed a claim before the District Judge on 20-3-1940, alleging that although there had been a partition of the entire estate between him and his brother Kanhaiyalal, he had discovered that the latter had suppressed the major portion of the property and the same had now come into the possession of the Nazir as Manager and thus he claimed as the sole surviving reversioner in respect of the suppressed property.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration before the Supreme Court was “whether Kanhaiyalal had suppressed certain movables in the previous partition through mistake, accident, or fraud, and, if so, what was the share to which he was entitled?”.
The Supreme Court opined that the crucial date was the date of the partition, i.e., 12-07-1935, and it could not be said that the funds existing on 26-09-1935 with Kanhaiyalal, or funds similar in amount must necessarily have existed at the date of the partition. The Supreme Court opined that Mohanlal was unable to refer to any evidence prior to the date of the partition showing that the joint family property included any such funds and it was Mohanlal’s duty to establish by clear and reliable evidence that the monies existed at or immediately prior to the date of the partition before he was entitled to a finding that they were deliberately excluded from the partition.
The Supreme Court relied on yadi (memorandum) of Kanhaiyalal for the year 1934-1935 and noted that the outstandings amounted to Rs. 37,794/13/3 and the liabilities to Rs. 10,229/6/3, i.e., after allowing the liabilities, there were still outstandings of Rs. 27,000. The Supreme Court observed that this memorandum referred to October 1935, i.e., nearly three months after the partition. The memorandum for the year 1934-1935 showed Rs. 11,500 as cash in Bank of India, Poona, but the amount was slightly more in the years 1935-1936 and 1936-1937 and Rs. 11,500 was duly accounted for in the deed of partition. The Supreme Court, regarding the outstandings, opined that it was not possible to predicate with any degree of certainty whether they existed at the date of the partition, and even if they did, whether they were good debts which were recoverable. The Supreme Court opined that Mohanlal could not derive any benefit only by relying upon the accounts which came into existence after the date of the partition.
The Supreme Court noted that the deed of partition clearly stated that Mohanlal had no rights of any kind left in the movable property allotted to Kanhaiyalal, whether that property was ancestral or self-acquired and the entire liability for debts was undertaken by Kanhaiyalal, and Mohanlal was completely absolved from the payment of those debts.
The Supreme Court relied on Section 19 of the Contract Act, 1872 and opined that Mohanlal’s own evidence knocks the bottom out of the plea of fraud, as he clearly admitted that the accounts were accessible to him, and he could have examined them if he had so desired. He never expressed any such desire at the time of the partition, but the inventory filed in the lunacy proceedings furnished him with an occasion to rescind the partition on the ground that his brother had suppressed certain property and deliberately omitted it from the partition. The Supreme Court also opined that Mohanlal’s failure to employ the means readily available to him at the time of the partition cuts at the root of the whole theory of fraud which he had chosen to set up after the lapse of nearly five years. He got the widow declared a lunatic and after her death used the occasion for making out a case of fraud.
The Supreme Court held that a party to a partition of joint family property who wants to reopen it on the ground of fraud practised upon him by deliberate suppression of certain property at the time of partition could not be heard to complain of it several years later and be allowed to rescind the partition when the accounts containing the joint family property were easily within his reach and could have been examined by him with ordinary diligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs and further, held that Mohanlal had failed to prove fraud.
[Mohanlal Ramchandra Gujrathi v. Ghanshyamdas Ramchandra Gujrathi, (1952) 2 SCC 316, decided on 29-10-1952]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Ghulam Hasan
Note: Rescind partition on ground of fraud
Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with agreements reached by pressure, fraud, or deceit. This provision states that a contract entered into by parties without free consent of any of the parties, and assent obtained through coercion, fraud, or deception is voidable at discretion of the party whose consent is obtained through these means. If the person whose permission is obtained through fraud or deception wants the contract to continue, they must be placed in the position they would have been in if the misrepresentation made to them had been accurate. But the contract is not stated to be voidable if the party whose assent is produced by silence to a fact or by misrepresentation, and the party had proper methods of knowing the truth.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (K.T. Desai and A.M. Mehta, Advocates, with him)
For the Respondents: M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India (M.B. Chitre, Advocate, with him)
