9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Validity and effect of documents Ex. I, II, and VI; undue influence; partition and severance of status; disqualification due to mental incapacity; entitlement to properties and mesne profits.
Analysis of Judgment: 1. Validity and Effect of Documents Ex. I, II, and VI: The principal question for determination in the appeal is the validity and effect of documents Ex. I and Ex. II executed by Krishna Josier, and Ex. VI, a deed of trust. The plaintiffs contended that Ex. I did not effect a partition and that Ex. II and Ex. VI were invalid. The defendants argued that these documents were operative and that Ex. I brought about a severance of status and a fair division of the family properties. The Court concluded that Ex. I could not be upheld as a partition in the sense of an allotment of properties to the first plaintiff but was effective in bringing about a severance of status between the first plaintiff and his father. 2. Undue Influence: The plaintiffs suggested that Ex. I, II, and VI were brought about by undue influence, alleging that Krishna Josier was not in a fit condition to execute these documents due to age, illness, and other causes. The defendants denied these allegations. The Court found no evidence of undue influence, stating that the changes in the documents were explained by changes in family circumstances and relations. The Court agreed with the lower Court's conclusion that there was no undue influence. 3. Partition and Severance of Status: The plaintiffs argued that Ex. I did not effect a partition and that the first plaintiff was not a co-parcener due to his insanity. The Court referenced the decision in Muthusami Gurukkal v. Meenammal, which recognized a person under disability as a co-parcener who could take by survivorship but could not demand partition. The Court concluded that Ex. I brought about a severance of status between the first plaintiff and his father, even though no property was allotted to the first plaintiff. 4. Disqualification Due to Mental Incapacity: The defendants initially contended that the first plaintiff was congenitally disqualified but later argued that his mental incapacity did not disqualify him in law until he became insane in 1920. The Court discussed the legal status of a person under disability with reference to joint family property, concluding that a disqualified person could still be a co-parcener enough to take by survivorship. 5. Entitlement to Properties and Mesne Profits: The plaintiffs were entitled to a division of the properties into two equal shares and delivery of one share to themselves. The Court directed the lower Court to take necessary steps for effecting the division if the parties could not agree on an arrangement. The plaintiffs were also entitled to mesne profits in respect of their share from the date of Ex. I to the date of Krishna Josier's death, subject to legitimate deductions. Costs: The Court directed that the parties bear their respective costs in the lower Court, but the appellants must pay the respondents' costs in the appeal. The plaintiffs were justified in coming to Court due to the framing of Ex. I but proceeded with the appeal at their own risk.
|
