1986 (8) TMI 450 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Partition and separate possession of the 2/15th share in the suit properties.
2. Accounting of the family business.
3. Validity of the conveyance executed by the Official Assignee.
4. Effect of annulment of adjudication on the joint family status and property rights.
5. Registration requirement of the conveyance document.
6. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to the family business and properties.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Partition and Separate Possession of the 2/15th Share in the Suit Properties:
The plaintiffs, who are brothers, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/15th share in the suit properties, claiming that they were part of a Hindu joint family and that there was no division of the family assets. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to 1/5th share each after the death of Kothandarama Chettiar's widow. The court, however, concluded that the 2nd defendant's 1/4th share in the joint family property had been transferred to Ganapathi Chetty and later vested with the Official Liquidator. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not claim any share in the 2nd defendant's portion of the family properties.

2. Accounting of the Family Business:
The plaintiffs sought an accounting of the family business from defendants 3 and 4. The court dismissed this claim, noting that the business had passed out of the 2nd defendant's branch and was converted into a partnership by the remaining coparceners, who became the absolute owners of the business. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had no right to claim any share or accounting in the business.

3. Validity of the Conveyance Executed by the Official Assignee:
The court upheld the validity of the conveyance executed by the Official Assignee to Ganapathi Chetty under Ex.D-8, despite it being unregistered. The court reasoned that the conveyance was made under a court order and, therefore, did not require registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as per Section 2(d) of the Act. The court confirmed that the 1/4th share of the 2nd defendant was validly transferred and vested with the Official Liquidator.

4. Effect of Annulment of Adjudication on the Joint Family Status and Property Rights:
The court determined that the annulment of adjudication did not result in the properties reverting to the insolvent. Instead, the properties continued to vest with the Official Assignee for transfer to the guarantor, Ganapathi Chetty. The court emphasized that there was no revesting of the estate on annulment, and the 2nd defendant's share had gone out of the family, leaving nothing for the plaintiffs to claim.

5. Registration Requirement of the Conveyance Document:
The court rejected the argument that the conveyance document (Ex.D-8) required registration. It held that the document was executed under a court order, making it exempt from registration under Section 2(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court cited relevant case law to support its conclusion that the transfer by the Official Assignee under court orders did not require registration.

6. Entitlement of the Plaintiffs to the Family Business and Properties:
The court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the family business or the 2nd defendant's share in the family properties, as these had been validly transferred and vested with the Official Liquidator. However, the court acknowledged that the plaintiffs were entitled to a fractional share in their grandfather Kothandarama Chetty's properties and jewels. The shares were worked out as follows: each plaintiff was entitled to 23/900th share in their grandfather's properties and 1/15th share in the jewels of the 1st defendant.

Conclusion:
The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant was dismissed, and the Memorandum of Cross-Objections preferred by defendants 3 to 5 was allowed in part, modifying the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants 6 and 7 as indicated. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs in the appeal and the Memorandum of Cross-Objection.