2002 (11) TMI 797 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6, and their father constituted a Hindu joint family.
2. Whether the joint family owned the properties described in the plaint A, B, and C schedules.
3. The validity of the Will dated 15-2-1977 propounded by the sixth defendant.
4. The validity of the Will dated 5-6-1978 propounded by defendants 1 to 4.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any partition of the properties mentioned in the plaint.
6. Reliefs sought in the suits for dissolution of partnership firms and accounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6, and their father constituted a Hindu joint family:
The court concluded that the family did not constitute a Hindu joint family. The plaintiff and fifth defendant failed to prove that the properties were acquired with joint family funds or that there was a joint family nucleus sufficient to acquire the properties in question. The court observed that the plaintiffs did not provide convincing evidence to show the existence of joint family properties or businesses. The court noted that the family members were filing separate income tax returns and managing their properties and businesses independently, which indicated that the properties and businesses were not joint family properties.

2. Whether the joint family owned the properties described in the plaint A, B, and C schedules:
The court held that the properties in the plaint A, B, and C schedules were not joint family properties. The evidence showed that the properties were purchased by individual family members from their respective shares of profits from the businesses. The court found that the properties were treated as individual properties by the family members, who collected rents, managed the properties, and filed separate income tax returns. The court also noted that the plaintiff and fifth defendant did not examine key witnesses, such as Rangaiah, who could have provided crucial evidence about the family's financial situation before 1948.

3. The validity of the Will dated 15-2-1977 propounded by the sixth defendant:
The court found that the Will dated 15-2-1977 (Ex.B97) was valid and binding. The Will was executed and registered in accordance with the law, and the sixth defendant proved the execution of the Will by examining the attestors and the scribe. The court rejected the allegations of undue influence, fraud, and coercion, noting that the sixth defendant did not take an active part in the execution of the Will. The court also found that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.

4. The validity of the Will dated 5-6-1978 propounded by defendants 1 to 4:
The court held that the Will dated 5-6-1978 (Ex.B96) was not proved as the attestors of the Will were not examined. Therefore, the court did not accept the validity of this Will.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any partition of the properties mentioned in the plaint:
The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any partition of the properties mentioned in the plaint. The court found that the properties were not joint family properties and were owned individually by the family members. Consequently, the plaintiff could not claim a share in these properties.

6. Reliefs sought in the suits for dissolution of partnership firms and accounts:
The court remitted the suits for dissolution of partnership firms (O.S. No. 73 of 1983 and O.S. No. 468 of 1983) to the trial court for proper adjudication. The trial court was directed to dispose of the matters within six months, considering the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932. The court noted that the trial court had not adjudicated on the issues related to the dissolution of the firms and accounts.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the sixth defendant and defendants 1 to 4 were allowed, and the suits filed by the plaintiff and the fifth defendant were dismissed. The court held that the properties in question were not joint family properties and that the Will dated 15-2-1977 was valid and binding. The suits for dissolution of partnership firms were remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal.