Madras High Court
RAMANUJAM,V.RAMASWAMI
Lakshmi Ammal - Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Ammal - Respondent
Decided On : 03/25/1974
HINDU LAW - JOINT FAMILY - BUSINESS - PRESUMPTION - ANCESTRAL PROPERTY - ADOPTION - PROPERTY INHERITED FROM NATURAL FAMILY - WHETHER ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IN ADOPTED SON'S HANDS - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Sambamoorthy, was adopted by Ananthanarayana Iyer in or about the year 1890. Subsequent to the adoption, Sambamoorthy left the village for Madras and started a sweetmeat business. He eventually became the sole proprietor of the business and purchased the suit properties out of the income from the business. The defendant, Sambamoorthy's daughter-in-law, claimed that the suit properties were joint family properties and that she was entitled to a share in them. The plaintiff contended that the suit properties were his self-acquired properties and that the defendant had no right to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Sambamoorthy did not inherit any properties from his adoptive father and that the properties which he got from his natural father and mother cannot be considered to be ancestral property in his hands. The court also found that the sweetmeat business was not a joint family business and that the suit properties were acquired only from and out of the income from the sweetmeat business. Therefore, the court held that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of Sambamoorthy and that the disposition by will in favor of the plaintiff was valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the sweetmeat business was founded by Sambamoorthy with the ancestral or joint family funds so as to make the acquisition of the properties out of the profits from that business as joint family properties. 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,000/- due under the mortgage bond is ancestral property in the hands of Sambamoorthy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. There is no presumption in Hindu law that a business standing in the name of a member of a Hindu family is joint family business even when that member is the manager or the father, and that unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family or the joint family funds the business remains separate. 2. On adoption, the person to whom he is adopted becomes the adoptive father and only properties inherited from him thereafter could be called ancestral properties and any property got by him from his natural family will be in the nature of a gift from his natural family and not ancestral in his hands.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the court below, and decreed the suit as prayed for.
V. RAMASWAMI, J. :- One Panju Sastrigal of Pavattakudi village, Nannilam taluk, had two sons by name Ramaswami and Sambamoorthy, the first plaintiff herein, Samhamoorthy was adopted by one Ananthanarayana Iyer in or about the year 1890., Subsequent to the adoption, Sambamoorthy was married to one Ponnammal, Sambamoorthy had a son Halasyam and daughter Laxmi, the second plaintiff in the suit. Halasyam died on 3-7-1961 and the first defendant is his widow. Defendants 2 to 5 in the suit are the tenants in possession of the suit properties. Pending the suit the first plaintiff Sambamoorthy died on 13-7-1962 and his daughter, the second plaintiff was brought on record as his legal representative.
2. The plaint A schedule properties are pannai lands of an extent of 5 acres 24-1/3 cents. Schedules B to B-3 are lands under tenancy with defendants 2 to 5 and measure an extent of 7 acres 58-2/3 cents. The B schedule are two houses in Pavattakudi village and the C schedule relates to moveables and cattle. The A schedule pannai lands were in possession and cultivation of the first plaintiff's son Halasyam till his death on 3-7-1961, and thereafter continued to be in possession of the first defendant. The D schedule houses are also in possession of the first defendant. After the adoption sometime between 1896 and 1902 Sambamoorthy left the village for Madras. He was doing sweetmeat sales business originally ;is an assistant, then as a partner with one Subraimania Iyer and later he purchased the partnership business itself and became its sole proprietor. Out of she earnings from this business the first plaintiff purchased the suit properties and u number of other items of properties; some items had been disposed of by him and an extent of 4 acres 28 cents of nanja land apart from the suit properties were also stated to be in the possession of the first plaintiff through his tenants. He had also purchased a house in Mayavaram which was in his occupation till his death. After his death the second plaintiff got into possession of these 4 acres 28 cents. and the house in Mayavaram.
3. It is the case of Sambamoorthy that the suit properties and others are his self-acquired properties, that he did not get any immovable properties or cash or any other property either from his natural father or his adoptive father or from anybody else, that he saved substantially when he was assisting in various sweetmeat stalls and that with that money he became a partner with Surramania Iyer. With the earnings from that business he was able to purchase the other partner's share and became the sole proprietor of the business. All the suit properties were acquired out of the income from this sweetmeat business during the period between 1910 and 1925 when the plaintiff's son Halasyam was just a minor he having been born only in 1910. By his last will and testament dated 27-8-1961, Sambamoorthy had bequathed all his properties to his daughter, the second plaintiff after the death of his son Halasyam. On these allegations he had filed the suit for possession of the suit immovable and movable properties and for mesne profits.
4. In the written statement filed by the defendant she contended that the adoptive father had considerable immovable properties and cash and the adoption itself was made with a view to secure these properties. There were also ancestral properties belonging to the natural father in which Sambamoorthy was also given a share. The first plaintiff while young invested his ancestral funds and became a partner in a sweetmeat shop run at Madras and a little later purchased the other share in the partnership also with the ancestral funds. With the income from the business the suit properties were purchased and that the plaint schedule properties and the house in Mayavaram and the 4 acres 28 cents which are in possession of the second plaintiff are all joint family properties in which Halasyam, the husband of the first defendant had an equal share. S
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.