1942 (7) TMI 25 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Declaration of title to specified shares in suit lands
- Claim for accounts
- Validity of family arrangement
- Karta's liability to account to coparceners
- Recovery of money by coparcener from karta

Declaration of Title and Claim for Accounts:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to certain shares in the suit lands and for accounts. The plaintiff claimed half share in joint properties and sought accounts from the defendant for the period of his management. The defendant contended that there was a family arrangement based on Lalit's will, dividing the properties as per the will. The Court of first instance decreed the suit in part, declaring the plaintiff's title to the extent admitted by the defendant and ordering the defendant to render accounts for the period in question. The Court found that a coparcener can require the manager to account for dealings with coparcenary property without a partition suit. The defendant was held liable to account for existing assets, but no money relief could be allowed without partition.

Validity of Family Arrangement:
The plaintiff challenged the validity of the family arrangement, alleging undue influence and lack of consideration. The Courts found that the arrangement was made and acted upon by the parties. The plaintiff's claim of undue influence was dismissed as the alleged undue influence ceased to exist after the influencer's death. The arrangement was held to be valid as it avoided future disputes, constituting good consideration. The presumption of jointness in a joint Hindu family was upheld, and the karta's liability to account to coparceners was affirmed based on legal precedents.

Karta's Liability and Recovery of Money:
The Court confirmed the karta's liability to exhibit accounts for the entire period of management. However, it was clarified that a coparcener cannot recover money from the karta based on the accounts taken, as long as the family remains joint. The legal relation between the karta and coparceners was explained, emphasizing the karta's control over income and expenditure. Without partition or removal of the karta, the custody of assets must remain with the karta. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the Court of appeal below, dismissing the appeal and cross-objection regarding costs.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the karta's liability to account and the limitations on recovery of money by coparceners from the karta in a joint Hindu family setup.