K. V. NARAYANASWAMI IYER versus K. V. RAMAKRISHNA IYER AND ORS.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 25-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
Jlarch26 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964) 
K. V. NARAYANASWAMI IYER 
v. 
K. V. RAMAKRISHNA IYER AND ORS. 
[K. SUBBA RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.J 
Hindu Law-Property acquired in the name of a member of 
ioin't family-Joint family having sufficient nucleus on that 
date-Presumption that property is acquired from joint family 
funds-If rebuttable-Past transactions-Manager when account-
able. 
There were three brothers who continued as members of a 
joint family with the eldest of them, the first respondent as the 
karta. Certain properties were acquired thereafter for the joint 
family. Certain properties were also acquired in the name of thP-
first respondenfs son his wife and grandson. The two other 
brothers of respondent no. 1 acquired properties for themselves 
out of their own earnings. Relations became strained between the 
brothers and the second brother the present appellant filed suit 
for partition claiming not only the original properties of the joint 
family· and the properties acquired for the joint family by the 
Karta, the present respondent but also the properties acquired by 
the respondent no. 1 in the name of his \Vife, son and grandson as 
joint family properties. He also called on the first respondent to 
account for the past years. The third brother was impleaded as 
second defendant. Respondent no. l's contention was teat the last 
mentioned properties were bought by him from his own savings 
and therefore were not part of the joint family property and 
consequently not liable to partition. The learned trial Judge held 
that those properties were joint family property and were liable 
to be partitioned. Respondent No. 1 thereupon appealed to the 
High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal regarding sub-
stantial part of the schedule properties. Thereupon the appellant 
filed the present appeal. 
Held: (i) Where properties were acquired in the name of a 
joint family member, if at the date of' such acquisition the joint 
family had sufficient nucleus for acquiring it, the property should 
be presumed to have been acquired from out of family funds and 
so to form part of the joint family property, unless the contrary 
is shown. In the present case on a consideration of the evidence 
it is found th~ the joint family had at the date of the acquisition 
of the properties in question sufficient nucleus from which these 
properties could be acquired. 
Amritlal Sen & Ors. v. Surath Lal Sen, A.LR. 1942 Cal. 553 
and Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurthy, I.L.R. [1948] Mad 
(P.C.) 440, referred to. 
(ii) In the absence of any evidence of fraud or misrepresenta-
tion the Karta of a joint family cannot be called upoJl to account 
for the past transactions, but this does n»t mean that the parties 
were bound to accept the statement of the Karla as to what the 
property consisted of and an enquiry should be directed by the 
court in a manner usually adopted to dis~over that in fact the 
property consisted of at the date of the partit10n. In what ~anner 
this principle can be applied depends on the facts and c:rcum-
stances of each case. Where as m the present case the evidence 
on record shows prima facie that the Karta could not reasonably 
7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
4.91 
be expected to have in his hands at the date of the suit any ac-
1964 
cumulaties found on evidence to have been acquired by the fami-
K. v. Narayana. 
ly, there can be no justification for calling the Karta to account """mi 
Jy" 
foc his past dealing with the joint family property and its income. 
v. 
K.V.Ramakrialona 
Pammchwar Dube v. Govind Dube, IL.R., 53 Cal. 459, 
Iyer and Ollur,_ 
explained.. 
.. 
Qvn. APPEU.ATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeal No. 589 
of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree 
dated April 28. 1953, of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 
69S of 1949. 
K.N. Rajagopal Sastri, K. Jayram and R. Ganapthy Iyer. 
foc the appellanL 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T.V.R. Tatachari, for re~­
pondent nos. I, 3, 4 and 6 to 8. 
B. Kalyona Sumlaram, M. Rajagopalan, K. Rajendra 
Chaudhry. M. R. Krishna Pillai for K. R. Chaudhuri, for res· 
pondent no. 2. 
March 26. 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli· 
vered by 
DAS CiuPTA, J.-Three brothers, Ramakrishna, Naraya-
DaaGupta,J. 
naswamy and Mahadeva, who are eighty-three, seventy nine 
and sixty nine years of age respectively, are the main figures in 
this litig;ltion.. After their father's death in 1908 the three 
brothers cxmtinued

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.