9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the shares in the company standing in the names of the various members of the family are joint family properties? 2. Whether the commission received by the two members of the family from the managing agency firm belongs to the joint family? 3. Whether the remuneration received by the plaintiff as managing agent is personal property or joint family property? 4. Whether the remuneration paid to the plaintiff as managing director is personal income or joint family property? 5. Whether there was any amount in cash in Mahalaxmi room belonging to the family and if so, how much? 6. Whether there were any ornaments and jewelry belonging to the joint family, and if so, in whose possession and custody are such ornaments lying and what is the value of such ornaments? Detailed Analysis: 1. Shares in the Company: The court determined that 200 shares in the name of defendant No. 2, 125 shares in the name of the plaintiff, 79 shares subsequently acquired by the plaintiff, and 4 shares in the name of defendant No. 1 were purchased with joint family funds and thus belong to the joint family. Each branch of the family has an equal 1/3 share in these 408 shares. Shares purchased by the parties after the disruption of the joint family status were not considered joint family property. 2. Commission from Managing Agency Firm: The court held that the commission received by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 from the managing agency firm belongs to the joint family. The entire income earned by them on the basis of the managing agency agreement was considered joint family property. The plaintiff is required to render accounts of all such amounts received and pay each of the other branches their 1/3 share. 3. Remuneration as Managing Agent: The court concluded that the remuneration received by the plaintiff as managing agent on the basis of the managing agency agreement is joint family property. The plaintiff's claim that this remuneration should be apportioned for services rendered by him was rejected. The court emphasized that the income earned by the plaintiff as managing agent was for and on behalf of the joint family and thus forms part of the joint family property. 4. Remuneration as Managing Director: The court found that the remuneration received by the plaintiff as managing director, appointed in 1957, is his personal income and does not belong to the joint family. The court noted that at the time of his appointment, the joint family had already disrupted, and the appointment was made for services to be rendered by the plaintiff, not as a return on the investment of the joint family. 5. Cash in Mahalaxmi Room: The court acknowledged that there was some cash money belonging to the joint family in the Mahalaxmi room, but it was difficult to ascertain the exact amount. The plaintiff claimed there was approximately a lakh of rupees, while the receiver found over Rs. 21,000. The court decided to consider a reasonable amount while passing the final decree. 6. Ornaments and Jewelry: The court held that there was no proper evidence to establish that any ornaments, jewelry, or utensils belonging to the joint family were in the possession of any particular party. It concluded that these movables had already been partitioned, and whatever ornaments, jewelry, and utensils are in the possession of any of the parties now belong to them individually. Final Decree: 1. The plaintiff will pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the defendants, divided equally between the two branches. 2. The payment must be made within two months, failing which interest at 13.9% per annum will be applied from December 1, 1985. 3. The 408 shares will be divided equally among the three branches, with each branch receiving 136 shares. 4. The plaintiff's son, Mr. S.B. Sulakhe, is appointed Commissioner to divide the shares without remuneration. 5. The amount payable to the plaintiff from the cash in Mahalaxmi room is considered in the decree for Rs. 2 lakhs. 6. No party has any claim against the other for any joint family ornaments, jewelry, and utensils. 7. There are no other joint family properties for which any claims can be made. 8. Costs already paid by the plaintiff to the defendants will not be recoverable, and the parties will bear their own costs. The court set aside any contrary findings or directions of the High Court and allowed the appeals to that extent.
|
