The appellant contended that L, his sons and descendants constituted a joint hindu familyand there was no division. K,L,B jointly started the business and the properties acquired
thereof was acquired as a part of the joint family business and not in K’s individual
capacity. Hence the properties were joint family properties and B as the survivor was thesole owner of the properties in question.
The appellant further contended that even if there was a division in the joint family of L itshould be inferred from the conduct of the parties over a period of 50 years that there wasa reunion during the life and time of K and thereafter as k, l and b were running thebusiness jointly.
However, the Respondent contended that the family of L was divided and K started his businesswith his own capital and self acquired properties therefore it was not a joint hindu familybusiness and After his death according to the will both the nephews were entitled for 50% share
in K’s property and B was not the absolute owner of the property.
The Respondent further contended that the suit was barred by Res judicata as the revenue courthad already decreed this suit.
The court held that the suit was not barred by res judicata as the suit was not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 'Revenue Court and was maintainable in the Civil Court. Further, the judgmentof the Revenue Court on the issue of proprietary title could not operate as res judicata as theRevenue Court was not competent to try the subsequent suit.As regards to the ownership of the property the court held that there was a partition of the familyduring the lifetime of L. Every Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary isproved; but this presumption can be rebutted by direct evidence of partition or by course of