P.S. SAIRAM AND ANR. versus P.S. RAMA RAO PISEY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 04-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.S. SATRAM AND ANR. 
v. 
P.S. RAMA RAO PISEY AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 4, 2004 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Explanation to Section 6A and Amendment 
C made thereunder vide Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990: 
Suit for partition of property at item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the Schedule and 
rendition of accounts of joint family business-Defendant No. 1 bequeathing 
property at item No.3 of the Schedule-Challenge to-Trial Court decreed the 
D suit holding that Execution of Will not proved and that properties at item Nos. 2, 
3 and 4 acquired by defendant No. 1 (father of plaintijj) out of the joint family 
business-However, property at item No.4 not available for partition as it was 
sold-Affirmed by High Court but applicability of Section 6A of the Act denied 
and decree modified accordingly-On appeal, Held: presumption that property 
in the nmne of an individual member belongs to joint family cannot be applied 
E to business-No investment in the business from joint family fund-User of the 
property for business purpose does not prove to be detrimental to the joint family 
property-No evidence to show any blending-Hence, business carried on by 
defendant No. 1 cannot be treated as joint family business-Therefore, the 
properties acquired out of income of the business become self acquired 
properties-Defendant No. I/Testator could bequeath such property-Testator 
F died during pendency of suit, his share devolved by inheritance upon his heirs-
Decreel share to heirs accordingly modified 
Execution of Will-Requirements of-Held: Defendant No. I !Testator put 
his Left Thumb Mark instead of signing it due to nervous weakness-Evidef?ce 
G of defence witness corroborates reasons furnished thereto-Hence· Will duly 
executed by defendant No. I. 
Hindu Succession Act; Section 6A-Amendment made thereunder-
Applicability of-Held: In absence of appeal challenging decision of High 
Court on applicability of the amendment, correctness of the decision could not 
H 
98 
( 
P.S. SAIRAM v. P.S. RAMA RAO PISEY 
99 
be gone into. 
A 
Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for partition of joint family property 
and for rendition of accounts in respect of joint family business carried 
on by defendant No.I (father of the plaintiff). Defendant No.I had one son 
and two daughters from his first wife and one son (defendant No.2) and 
four daughters from his second wife (defendant No.l(e). He executed a B 
Will bequeathing property at item No.3 of the Schedule in favour of 
defendant nos. l(e) and 2. During pendcncy of suit, defendant No.I died 
and his first wife predeceased him. Trial Court held that defendant No.I 
had started joint family business in the property at item No.I of the 
Schedule and later acquired properties at item Nos. 2, 3 and 4 frO!ll the C 
income of joint family business. And that defendants failed to prove due 
execution of the Will. However, defendant Nos. l(a) and l(b) (daughters 
from first wife) were not entitled to any share in the property in terms of 
Section 6A of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act as 
having married before coming into force of the Karnataka Amendment 
in the Hindu Succession Act. Trial Court decreed the suit for partition D 
excepting property at item No.4 which was sold by defendant No. I. 
Aggrieved, both the parties filed appeals. High Court affirmed the findings 
of the Tria.1 Court holding Section 6A of the Act not applicable and 
accordingly modified the decree and the share in the properties. Hence 
. the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that .the business carried on by 
E 
the defendant on the joint family property was not joint family business; 
that the properties acquired out of the income of the business therefore 
became self-acquired properties of defendant no.I; that the Will was duly 
executed and the plaintiff/respondents were not entitled to any share in F 
the property acquired by defendant No.lfrom income of the business; and 
that upon the death of defendant No.I, plaintiff was entitled to I l/40th 
share in the property at item No.I and I/10th' share in the property at 
item No. 2. 
On behalf of respondents, it was submitted that since business G 
belonged to joint family, property acquired out of its income became joint 
family property and liable for partition; and that his sisters were entitled 
to get due share in the property since provisions of Karnataka Amendment 
Act were applicable. 
Partly al

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