9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Severance of joint family status. 2. Validity of the preliminary decree in suit No. 27 of 1923. 3. Ownership of properties in the name of the 24th defendant. 4. Application of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Liability of deceased defendants' estates for accounts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Severance of Joint Family Status: The core issue was whether the joint family status between Bijendra Narain and Bidya Narain and his sons was severed by the preliminary decree in suit No. 27 of 1923. The Court held that "there was no severance of status between the plaintiff Bijendra Narain on the one hand and Bidya Narain and his sons on the other." The Court emphasized that partition in a Hindu undivided family under Mitakshara law consists of defining the shares of the coparceners, and actual division by metes and bounds is not necessary. The Court found no evidence of an unequivocal intention by Bidya Narain and his sons to sever from Bijendra Narain, and the specification of shares in the decree did not constitute severance. The Court cited the principle that "merely because one member of a family severs his relation, there is no presumption that there is severance between the other members." 2. Validity of the Preliminary Decree in Suit No. 27 of 1923: The appellants contended that the preliminary decree resulted in severance of status. However, the Court noted that Bijendra Narain was a minor at the time and represented by his uncle Bidya Narain, making it impossible for an agreement to sever joint family status. The Court stated, "Specification by the decree of the shares of Bidya Narain and his sons on the one hand and of Bijendra Narain on the other, does not by itself constitute severance." The Court also dismissed the appellants' reliance on certain recitals in the decree as evidence of severance, labeling them as interpolations. 3. Ownership of Properties in the Name of the 24th Defendant: The Court addressed whether properties in the name of the 24th defendant belonged to the joint family. It upheld the Trial Court's finding that these properties were acquired with joint family funds by Bidya Narain and his sons. The Court rejected the appellants' claim that these properties were private, noting that the properties were acquired in the name of the 24th defendant by Bidya Narain to defeat Bijendra Narain's claim. 4. Application of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The appellants argued that Section 66(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure barred Bijendra Narain's claim to properties purchased at court auctions. The Court clarified that Section 66(1) aims to prevent claims that a certified purchaser bought property benami for another. However, Bijendra Narain's claim was that the properties were joint family properties acquired with joint family funds, not that they were purchased on his behalf. The Court concluded, "Such a claim does not fall within the terms of s. 66(1)." 5. Liability of Deceased Defendants' Estates for Accounts: The appellants contended that the High Court could not pass a decree for accounts against the estates of deceased defendants Mode Narain and Rajballav Narain. The Court dismissed this contention, stating that a claim for rendition of accounts is not personal and does not extinguish upon death. The Court explained, "Death of the person liable to render an account for property received by him does not therefore affect the liability of his estate." The High Court had correctly directed accounts from September 1941, considering the plaintiff's severance from the joint family in estate and residence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that there was no severance of joint family status between Bijendra Narain and Bidya Narain and his sons, and that the properties in question were joint family properties. The Court also upheld the liability of the deceased defendants' estates for accounts. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
