LexK. V. NARAYANAN versus K. V. RANGANANDHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
•
637
K. V. NARAYANAN
v.
K. V. RANGANANDHAN & ORS.
March 12, 1976
[A. C. GUPTA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Hindu Law-Joint family and paftition-Allotment to a member of pro-
perties for discharge of fan1ily debts-When may be regarded as his exclusive
property-Manager'.s liability for account-From lvhich date.
The appellant and V, father of respondents, were brothers. They, together
with their cousin, formed a joint Hindu family. In a partition in 1929 bet-
A
B
ween the two branches, certain properties were given to V for discharging
C
-some family debts.
V took over the management of his branch of the family
and after discharging the debts. filed in 1956 a suit for vartition against the
appe11ant claiming, inter alia, that one of the items earmarked for the dis-
charge of the debts which remained undisposed of, was his exclusive property
as it was given to him absolutely; and also for accounts on the ground that the
appellant took over the management from 1938. The trial court negatived the
claim in respect of the property, but directed the appellant to give accounts
from 1947 when admittedly he took over management.
On appeal, the High
Court upheld V's claim with respect to the property and gave rriodified direc-
D
tions for accounts by the parties.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) The properties given to V became his separate properties from
the date of the partition deed of 1929 and were not liable to partition. f643Al
(~) The salient features of the deed are, (i) the sole responsibility for dis-
charge of the debts was placed on V; (ii) V's liability was not to the extent
E
of the properties but was irrespective of the sufficiency or otherwise of the
properties and any deficit or surplus was to be met or enjoyed by him exclu-
sively; (iii) the cousin was no longer liable for the debts: (iv) in case there
was a default on V's part, and if any loss was caused to the cousin he was to
be indemnified by V; and (v) exclusive dominion and control over, and enjoy-
ment of, the properties, was vested in V in consideration of the obligation
undertaken by him to discharge the debts. The properties were thus given to
V in view of his personal undertaking to discharge the debts, and, the convey-
ance was iu the nature of remuneration for services to be rendered by him.
F
{642 C-G]
J<a; Kumar Singh Kukam Chll11.dii v. Co1nmissioner of Income-tax Madhya
Pradesh (1971] 1 SCR 748 referred to.
(l:J) The arrang:ement was valid because it was bona fide and its terms were
. fair. [643E]
Sahu Madho Das v. Pandit Muka11d Ram [1955] 2 SCR 22, Maturi Pullaiah
v. Maturi Narasimham AIR 1966 SC 1836 and S. Shanmugam Pillai & Ors. v.
G
K. Shanmugam Pillai & Ors. AIR 1972 SC 2069 referred to.
(c) There was no blendin~ of the properties by V with other joint family
properties. There was no evidence of any intention on V's part to abandon
his separate rights over the properties. The mere f~ct that they were
not
separately entered by him in the account books or that no separite account of
the earnings from them was maintained by him cannot rob them of their
separate character. [644B-C]
Lakkireddi Chi1111a Venkata Reddi & Ors. v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama [1964]
2 S.C.R. 172 and G. Naruyana Ram v. C. Chamaraju & Ors. A.1.R. 1968 S.C.
1276 referred to .
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 s.c.R.
(d) If any amount of the joint family funds was used by V for the dis-
charge of the debts, the respondents (legal representatives of V) would . be
liable for them,
but that would not affect the
character
of the properties.
[644 C-DJ
(2) It is well-settled that in the absence of proof of misappropriation or
fraudulent or improper conversion by the manager, a coparcener, seeking parti-
ti.Qn, cannot call upon the manager to account for his past dealings with the
family property.
Since there was no evidence of any misappropriation by V,
he was not liable for .accounts during his period of management. [644E-F]
\
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1365 of 196&
•
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 8-12-66 of the Madras
High Court in Appeal No. 609 of 1961.
K. N. Balasubrahmaniam and Miss Lily Thomas for the Appel-
lant.
K. Jayaram for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.-This is an appeal by certificate granted by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 133(1) (a) and (b)
of thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.