P. PERJASAMI (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. versus P. PERLATHAMBL AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 11-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. PERJASAMI (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. 
I'. 
P. PERlATHAMBl AND flRS. ETC. 
OCTOBER ll, 1995 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHl AND SUJATA Y. MANOHAR, J.T.J 
Hindu Law : 
Self-acquired prope11y of a male Hindu, dying intestate-Devolution 
C of-Elder of pa11ies swvived by sons but no grandsons-Subsequent/)' accre-
tions 111ade to descended ;1ro11e1ty out of incon1e received fronz it-Suit for 
pm1ition of descended propC11y as also vf accretions-Held, the descended 
prope11y came in possession of the sons by inlwitance, tlzeir status being that 
of tenants-in-conunon-Accretions n1ade out of incon1e froni joint prope1ty 
were not joint Hindu family prope1ty and were accountable-Plea of adverse 
D possession rejected. 
E 
'A', a common ancestor of the parties, died leaving behind certain 
self-acquired agricultural lands. He was survived by three sons bqt no 
grandsons. The said properties came in possession of his three sons. As 
the branches of 'A's sons grew \vith passage of time, some more properties 
were said to have been purchased out of the income derived from the 
descended properties. Later, a suit for partition came to be filed between 
the branches of two sons of 'A' alleging that the properties received from 
'A' and the accretions made thereto out of the funds derived from the 
descended properties, both were joint Hindu family properties. The deten-
F 
dants also claimed the deccnded properties as joint Hindu family proper-
ties, but refuted that 'A' and his three sons were members of joint Hindu 
family. They contended that the properties of 'A' came to his three sons by 
way of inheritance and not by survivorship, and, therefore, the accretions 
to the properties could not be related to the nucleus owned by joint Hindu 
G family so as !<~ partake the character of joint Hindu family property. The 
defendants claimed that the accretions where their personal accumula· 
_ lions; or, in. the alternative they \\'ere in adverse possession thereof. The 
parties ultimately filed the three appeals before this Court against the 
judgment of the High Court in civil appeals and cross-objections. 
H 
On the question : whether under Hindu law self-acquired property 
230 
P. PER!ASAMI v. P. PERIATHAMBI 
231 
of a fµther goes, on his death, to his sons, in absence of grand-sons, in a A 
,j<!in,~ f"rriily way in, jo~µ~ ~enancy, or does it descend by inheritance to them 
~i, shares as tenants-in-coll!rµon. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. The self-ac<1uired properties left by 'A', the common ances-
tor, there being no grandsons of'A' at the time of his death, cannot be held by 
the two branches as joint Hindu family properties because the three sons of 
'A' obtained it by inheritance and their status was that of tenants-in-com· 
mon; and if accretions to the said properties had been made out of the 
income of the joint property, then these were accountable. (235-C-D] 
Viravan. Chettiar v. S1inivasachaiiar, AIR (1921) Madras (Vol. 8) p. 
168, approved and reiterated. 
Mst. Ram Dei v. Mst. Gym,;, I.L.R. (1949) Allahabad 150 = AIR 
B 
c 
(1949) Alt. 545, cited. 
D 
2. The finding recorded by the High Court that the defendants have 
failed to prove that the accreted property was in their adverse possession, 
is a finding of fact, which need not be disturbed. In a plea of adverse 
possess~on it is inherent that someone else was the owner of the property. 
The failure of the plea has obvious results. (235-E) 
E 
3. If the parties herein were co-owners of the property and the said 
property had been purchased from the income derived from joint property, 
then obviously the same has to be accounted for as joint property and not 
as joint Hindu family property. It was like property jointly purchased by 
co-owners without attracting the rule of succession by way of su·rvivoi-ship. 
With this clarification the little vagueness about this particular in the 
judgment of the High Court is cleansed. (235-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1965-66 
of 1980 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.79 of the Madras High 
Court in A.S. Nos. 141 & 142 of 1972. 
R. Sundara Varadhan, A.T.M. Sampath, P.N. Ramalingam, Ms. N. 
F 
G 
Annapoorani, S. Srinivasan and R. Ayyam Perumal for the appearing H 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995[ SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Parties. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These are cross appeals against the judgment and decree dated 
January 11, 1979 of the High Court of Madras passed in Ap

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