9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the will dated 1st January 1933. 2. Nature of the properties (ancestral joint family properties vs. self-acquired properties). 3. Validity of the family arrangement. 4. Plaintiffs' share in the family properties. 5. Accounting for the profits and acquisitions made post-severance of the joint family status. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Will: The plaintiff Nagappa Setty based his claim on the will dated 1st January 1933 (Exhibit AA) made by his father, Lachiah Setty. The will claimed that all properties were self-acquired by Lachiah, which he was entitled to dispose of as he pleased. However, both the trial court and the High Court held that the properties were ancestral joint family properties, which Lachiah could not dispose of by will under Hindu law. The courts also found no valid family arrangement in the will, as one of the sons, Dasratha Setty, was a minor at the time of signing. 2. Nature of the Properties: The courts determined that the properties in question were ancestral joint family properties. Evidence showed that the family carried on extensive business in coffee and other commodities, acquiring significant wealth and properties over time. The will's claim that the properties were self-acquired was rejected, as the properties were acquired with the help of the ancestral nucleus. 3. Validity of the Family Arrangement: The plaintiff argued that the will should be treated as a family arrangement. However, the courts found no evidence of any occasion or motivation for a family arrangement. The will itself indicated harmonious relations among the family members and did not propose a partition or severance of status. Additionally, the acceptance of the will by the sons was not supported by adequate consideration, making it ineffective as a family arrangement. The courts also noted that one of the sons, Dasratha Setty, was a minor and his acceptance of the will was legally invalid. 4. Plaintiffs' Share in the Family Properties: The trial court initially held that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/9th share in the family properties. However, the High Court concluded that the correct share was 2/19th, based on the severance of the joint status on 30th March 1940, when the disputes were referred to arbitrators. The High Court's finding on the plaintiffs' share was not challenged in the arguments and was agreed upon. 5. Accounting for Profits and Acquisitions Post-Severance: The courts addressed the issue of accounting for profits and acquisitions made after the severance of the joint family status. It was held that the business carried on by the defendants after 11th July 1940 was their separate business, and the plaintiffs had no right to claim any share in the profits or acquisitions made from that business. Similarly, the defendants could not claim any share in the business run by the plaintiff after the same date. However, the parties were accountable for the rents, income, profits, and dividends received from the joint family properties in their possession post-severance. Conclusion: The appeals by the plaintiffs were dismissed, and the High Court's findings were upheld. The decree was clarified to ensure proper execution, declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to a 2/19th share in the joint family properties and liable for a similar share in the liabilities. The joint family properties as of 11th July 1940 were to be partitioned, and the parties were to account for the income derived from these properties until the final partition. The separate businesses carried on by the parties after 11th July 1940 were not subject to partition. Decree: 1. Plaintiffs entitled to 2/19th share in joint family properties and liabilities. 2. Joint family properties to be partitioned, accounting for rents, income, profits, and dividends received post-11th July 1940. 3. Separate businesses post-11th July 1940 not subject to partition. 4. Plaintiffs to be put in possession of their share of properties. 5. Costs to be paid by appellants as ordered by the High Court.
|
