9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit was for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs. 2. Whether the property specified in Schedule 1 to the written statement of the appellant is his separate property or joint family property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit was for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs: The High Court of Judicature at Madras reversed the District Judge's decision, concluding that the suit was filed in the interest of the minor plaintiffs. The High Court based its decision on two grounds: (a) increased estrangement between the appellant and his family since the filing of the suit, and (b) the birth of two sons to the appellant by his second wife, which would reduce the minor plaintiffs' shares in the joint family property. However, the Privy Council disagreed with these reasons. It was held that the estrangement was likely due to the institution of the suit itself, and the potential reduction in shares due to the birth of additional sons was a normal aspect of a coparcenary governed by Mitakshara law. The Privy Council found these reasons untenable and emphasized that the joint family is the normal unit of Hindu society, and the advantage of membership cannot be measured merely by the extent of interest in the coparcenary property. 2. Whether the property specified in Schedule 1 to the written statement of the appellant is his separate property or joint family property: The High Court held that the entire property listed in Schedule 1 was joint family property, rejecting the appellant's claim that it was his self-acquired property. The High Court reasoned that the appellant was managing the joint family business before and at the time of the partition and presumed that the business was conducted on behalf of the joint family. However, the Privy Council found this view mistaken. Exhibit A, the partition deed, did not mention the aluminium and paddy business or its assets and liabilities. The appellant's evidence, supported by a mediator, indicated that the business was his own and that he had agreed to apply a sum of Rs. 7,000 for the family's benefit. The Privy Council noted that acts of generosity should not be construed as admissions of legal obligation. The Privy Council further clarified that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting that any property is joint family property. Although the appellant received some joint family property under Exhibit A, the evidence showed that this property remained substantially intact and unencumbered. The income from this property was used for family expenses, and there was no evidence that it assisted in acquiring the properties listed in Schedule 1. Consequently, the appellant successfully proved that the properties in question were his self-acquired properties. Conclusion: The Privy Council advised that the appeal be allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the District Judge's order. The costs of the appeal to the High Court of Madras and the Privy Council were to be paid by respondent No. 1 and the guardian of minor respondent No. 2.
|
