1973 (6) TMI 71 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the partition alleged by the plaintiffs in 1961 was true, valid, and binding.
2. Whether the sale of casuarina trees for Rs. 30,000/- by the first defendant was true and if the plaintiffs were entitled to a one-third share.
3. Whether the denial of the existence of certain properties by the first defendant was true and correct.
4. Whether pooja and utsavams were to be performed by the family and if provision should be made for them in the partition decree.
5. Whether the debts stated by the first defendant were true, existing, and binding on the family.
6. Whether the first defendant was liable to render an account.
7. The reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Partition Alleged by Plaintiffs in 1961:
The trial court concluded that the partition alleged by the plaintiffs to have taken place in the beginning of 1961 was not true. The plaintiffs did not appeal this finding, making it unnecessary to consider this issue further in the appeal.

2. Sale of Casuarina Trees:
The trial court found that the appellant did not prove that the casuarina trees were sold during the lifetime of Chandrasekhara and Gnanasekhara. The court held that the trees were sold after their deaths, entitling the plaintiffs to a one-third share of the Rs. 30,000/- sale proceeds. The appellate court agreed, noting that the interest of Gnanasekhara in the casuarina trees vested in his heirs (the plaintiffs) upon his death, thus making the appellant accountable to the plaintiffs for their share of the sale proceeds.

3. Denial of Existence of Properties:
The trial court rejected the appellant's claim that Items 38 to 46 of the plaint D Schedule belonged to Maragathammal and not to the joint family. The appellant did not challenge this finding in the appeal.

4. Pooja and Utsavams:
The trial court held that the family was not under an obligation to perform Guru pooja or utsavam, and the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. The appellate court upheld this finding, emphasizing the lack of evidence to establish a family obligation to perform these rituals.

5. Debts Stated by the First Defendant:
The trial court found the debts listed by the appellant to be untrue and fabricated to diminish the plaintiffs' share in the family properties. The appellate court agreed, noting that the appellant failed to establish the truth and binding nature of the debts through credible evidence.

6. Liability to Render an Account:
The trial court directed that an account be taken of the income from all suit properties and future mesne profits, with the plaintiffs entitled to a one-third share. The appellate court upheld this directive, emphasizing the statutory changes brought by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which required the kartha to account for the deceased coparcener's share.

7. Reliefs to Plaintiffs:
The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' one-third share in the plaint A, B, C, and D Schedule properties. The appellate court upheld this decree, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

Conclusion:
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's findings on all issues. The plaintiffs were entitled to their one-third share in the family properties, including the sale proceeds of the casuarina trees, and the appellant was held accountable for the same. The court emphasized the statutory changes brought by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 6, which carved out the deceased coparcener's interest from the joint family property, vesting it in the heirs and excluding the kartha's right to deal with it.