LexG. NARAYANA RAJU versus G. CHAMARAJU & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
464 G. NARAYANA RAJU v. G. CHAMARAJU & OTHERS March 19, 1968 [J. C. SHAH, V. !lAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) Hindu joint fami/y-Hotch Potch-Self acquisition when acquires characteristics of joint family property-concurrent finding that business is separate--SnprenJe Court lvill not interfere under Art. 133. There is no presumption under Hindu l~w that a business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint family business everi if that member is the manager of the joint family. Unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate, the business remains free and separate. [466 F-Hl Bhuru Mal v. Jagannath. A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 40, Pearey Lal v. Nanak Chand, A.I.R. 19'48 P.C. 108, Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Iyer, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 799, referred to. The separate property of a Hindu coparcener ceases to be his separate property and acquires the characteristics of his joint family or ancestral property, not by mere act of physical mixing with . his joint family or ancestral property but by his own volition and intention, by his waiving or surrendering his special right in it as separat•e property, Mei-e recitals in deeds dealing w:th self acquisitions as ancestral joint family property is not by itself u.rfficient; but it must be established that there \Vas a clear intention on the part of the coparcener to waive his separate property. [470 B-CJ lfurourshad v. S!ieo Dyal, 3 I.A. 259. Lal Bahadur v. Kanhaiya Lal, 34 l:A. 65. Leh Mddun Go,al v. Khikhinda Kaer, 18 I.A. 9, Naina Pillai v. Daiyanai Ammal, A.J.R. 1936 Mad. 177, referred to. A B c D E \\ihete there is a concurr~nt find'ng of both the lower courts that the bur,iness is a scp:irate business and it is neith~r a ?oint family business nor ~reated as joint family business, it is not open to further scrutiny by th~s F Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution. [467 A-Bl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 613 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 25, 1960 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 155 of 1953. V. Krishnamurthy and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. H. R. Gokhale, B. Subbiah and R. Thiagarajan, for respon- dents Nos. 2 and 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J". The plaintiff G. Narayana Raju filed O.S. 34 of 1951-52 in the Court of District Judge, Mysore for partition and separate possession of suit properties mentioned in the vari- ous schedules of the plaint. The first defendant is the brother G H NARAYANA RA.TU v. CHAMARA.ru' (Ramaswami, J.) 465,, A: of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the widow of M~ami Raju, tho eldest brother of the plaintiff. The third defc;ndant. is the· ·legal representative of the plaintiff's mother: She is ·now. the a_Ppellant having been brought bn record as the legal ·representa- tive of the deceased plaintiff. The case of the original plaintiff was that he, the first defendant and Muniswamj Raju (husband of the second defendant) were the sons. of one·Gopala Raju.and were all members of· the joint faniily. Gopalaraju died in May B c D E F G 1931 and after. his death the plaintiff and his brothers continued to be mel!lbers of the joint faniily. The joint status of the faniily was severed by the issue of a registered notice by the first defen- dant to the' pJ.aintiff in July 1951. An ancestral house in Nazar- bad belonging to the family was acquired 'by the ,City Improvement Trust Board in or about the year 1909 .. Out of the compensation paid for that house and supplemented by the earnings of the members of the joint family, the house item ,No. 1 of Schedule 'A' to th,e plaint was pµrchase!l by Gopalaraju in or about the year 1910. Subsequently item No. ·2 of Schedule 'A'. was also purchased by Go11alaraju from the income of item No. 1 ·suppl1>- mented by the earr1ings_ of the. members of the family. All the other ·items of properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' and other Schedules attached to the plaint were acquired out of the income from items 1 and 2 of Schedule 'A'. It was further ,alleged that the business'known as "Arnbika Stores~ was also the joint family business and· all the properties mentioned in the Schedules except items 1 and 2 of Schedule 'A' were acquired o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.