K.V.

NARAYAN
V/S
K.V. RANGANATHAN

Facts of the casE

In this case, the karta of the family sought partition of various properties and for separate
possession. The plaintiff sought his larger share in the property and he also declared that
some of the properties were his self-acquired properties which he kept outside the scope of
the properties.

The defendant’s father was the karta and the manager of the joint family till 1927 and
therefore the plaintiff became the manager and karta of the joint hindu family. The defendant
in this case were minor at that time and he is the son of the brother of the plaintiff.

The claim of the plaintiff was resisted on the ground that the properties which the plaintiff
alleged to be his self-acquired properties were ancestral and the defendant was having share
in it, and the said properties also were required to be considered as ancestral properties after
having been blended in the GFP by the plaintiff who is the real uncle of the defendant.

There was

the main case depends upon the interpretation of the terms of the family deeds. It was clearly
mentioned in the partition deed that the properties mentioned in schedule D-1would be the
exclusive ownership of the plaintiff after the discharge of the family debts, which were
incurred by father of the defendant during the time, he was the Karta and the manager of the
family. The plaintiff discharged all the debts in the year 1934 and then the suit was brought
that he was entitled to partition of rest of the properties excluding the properties, which
became himself acquired properties after the discharge of the family debts.

Decision of lower court

The lower court disposed of the suit by holding that there was blending by the plaintiff of
properties acquired by him in the partition deed after the discharge of the debts and on the
accounts of the said fact, the said properties could not be treated as self-acquires properties of
the plaintiff and it being the ancestral properties and JFP, the defendant had share in it. In the
meantime while the plaintiff expired and his legal heirs feted on appeal before the HC.
Decision of high court

The HC reversed the finding of the learned the lower court, in this respect and that is how the
matter came up before the SC.

Legal issues before the SC

The main question for determination before the SC was whether the properties mentioned the
partition deed is schedule D-1 were separate properties of the plaintiff or it were the ancestral
properties?

Decision of the Supreme Court

The SC upheld the finding of the HC by returning the finding that the said question
depending upon the interpretation and construction of the partition deed Ex-A. It was clearly
mentioned in the deed that it would be the liability of the plaintiff (Karta) to discharge the
family debts incurred by the father of the appellant prior to 1927 i.e. during the period he
remained the manager Karta of the JF and it was also mentioned in D-1 would vest in him in
consideration of obligation undertaken by him to discharge debt. The Plaintiff in this case
discharged the debts and when he became the exclusive owner of the properties mentioned in
the said schedule. The plea taken by the appellant was that the properties even if considered
to have been acquired by the plaintiff through the partition deed, would assume the character
of ancestral properties after having been blended by the plaintiff in the JFP. The SC held that
it is intention of the members of JF which is to be taken into consideration before ascertaining
whether he had put his self-acquired property in the family hotchpotch or not? Even the
member of the family has not mentioned separate account of self acquire income and has
permitted the clash of said properties by the member of the joint family as he has been using
the income of the such properties for the welfare and the purpose of the JFP. The partition
deed was held to be legal as per family wanted to resolve all the disputes amicably and it was
even permitted by the hindu law and as such, the contention of the appellant was not accepted
and the partition deed was held to be legal and valid one and the properties mentioned in
schedule D-1 were held to be self-acquired properties of the plaintiff, as he has acquired the
pursuance of the partition deed and after discharging the family deeds. As such the order of
the HC was not upheld and appeal was dismissed

Appeal Dismissed