The income from an archaka service inam, which is heritable and partible property, is joint family income so long as there is no partition among the members of the family.

( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon ble The Chief justice. This is a defendant s appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Judge of Guntur in O. S. No. 4 of 1948, a suit filed by the 1st respondent for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The following genealogy may usefully be referred to for appreciating the facts and the contentions of the parties.

( 2 ) THE persons shown in the genealogy comprise a joint Hindu family. The 2nd defendant s husband, Krishnamacharyulu predeceased his father venkataramanujacharyulu, leaving his widow 2nd defendant and daughters defendants 3 and 4. Venkata Ramanujacharyulu died in the later part of the year 1947. The plaintiff, claiming items 6 to 12 of the plaint A schedule as joint family properties and items 1 to 5 as having been acquired from and out of the income of the said properties, filed the suit for partition and for possession of his half share therein. The 1st defendant pleaded that items 6 to 12 were archaka service inams and were not partible, that items 1 to 5 were purchased by his father from and out of the income carried by him as a physician and as a musician and that his father had disposed of the same in his favour under a will executed prior to his death.

( 3 ) THE learned subordinate Judge, on a consideration of the evidence and the law applicable thereto, held that items 6 to 12, though archaka service inams, were liable to be partitioned and that items 1 to 5 were purchased by the 1st defendant s father from and out of the joint family income. In the result, he held that the entire plaint schedule properties were joint family properties liable to be partitioned between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. In that view, he passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition of the plaint A schedule properties except the portion of the house covered by Ex. B-10 into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share. Defendants 1 and 5 preferred the above appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that items 1 to 5 of the plaint A schedule were purchased from and out of the personal income of venkata Ramanujacharyulu earned by him in his profession as a musician and as a physician and that, in any view, the income from the archaka service inam was his personal income and that even if the said items were purchased from and out of that income, they would only be his self-acquisitions. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent argues that there was no reliable evidence to prove that Venkata Ramanujacharyulu had any professional income, that the properties were only purchased from and out of the income of the archaka service inams and that the archaka service inams being heritable and partible properties, the acquisitions made out of that income also formed part of the joint family properties. The following are the particulars of items 1 to 5 of the plaint A Schedule purchased by Venkata Ramanujacharyulu. (His Lordship then considered the entire evidence and held that items 6 to 12 were joint family property, and that items 1 to 5 were purchased from and out of the income derived from items 6 to 12 and not from the personal income, if any, earned by Venkata Ramanujacharyulu. His Lordship then proceeded:)

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel then raised a point of law. He argues, that, even on the basis that items 1 to 5 were purchased from and out of the income of the archaka service inam lands, the income was the personal income of Venkata ramanujacharyulu and, therefore, the acquisitions made out of that income also were his separate property. The argument is that though the archaka service inam lands are heritable property, they are only partible among members of the same degree and, therefore so long as Venkata Ramanujacharyulu was alive, his sons had no right to the income from that property. The law on this subject is now fairly well-settled. One of us (The Chief justice) had occasion to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document