If, on taking accounts, the plaintiffs are found to have received less for their 2/19th share in such rents, income, profits and dividends, the deficiency shall be made good by the defendants.
The parties, however, failed to carry out those directions although, in the first instance, they had agreed to the arrangement.
Are the parties in possession of joint family properties liable to give account for the rents, income, profits, and dividends in respect of the joint family properties to the others and, if so, the period thereof?
His heirs and legal representatives have been prosecuting the suits and the appeals.
The partition shall be effected by a companymissioner appointed by the Court in respect of all properties number required under the law to be partitioned by the Deputy Commissioner.
The Commissioner was directed to submit the report, determining the 2/19th share out of the said income which should be allotted to the share of the plaintiff.
What is the effect of the number availability of most of the shares, bonds and securities which were in possession of the plaintiff in the year 1940?
It is, however, clarified that the parties are number accountable for the profits or acquisitions made in the companyrse of the separate business or business carried on by the parties after July 11, 1940.
1198/79 , it will determine the remaining issues and further proceed with the final decree proceedings.
One of the issue relevant for our purpose is Issue No.6 which reads as under If the Plaintiffs were found to have been in possession of the assets of the value of more than 2/19th share as on 11.7.1940, are they number entitled to the other reliefs of partition and accounting as alleged by the Defendants.
Despite the desire expressed by him that even after his death, his children should live in harmony, united and without any difference as he felt that the vast properties had been acquired on account of the family remaining united, the disputes started between brothers within about two years of his death, i.e., in 1938.
The liability of the parties to account for the rents, income, profits and dividends received by them would be from 11th July, 1940 till the date of final partition in respect of joint family properties in their respective possession on and after 11th July, 1940.
V. M.D. Subbaraya Setty dead through LR.
The aforesaid questions are to be decided while bearing in mind that the parties are bound and governed by the earlier decision of this Court inter se parties as referred to above while finally deciding the partition suit up to the stage of the preliminary decree as substituted by this Court.
If the answer to the aforesaid question be in affirmative, what is the relevant date for determining the valuation of the assets so as to ascertain and separate 2/19th share of the plaintiff?
According to them, the properties were ancestral joint family properties which Lachiah Setty was incapable of disposing of by will.
The effect of the aforesaid direction of the trial companyrt was that the Coffee estates in possession of the defendants were allowed to be retained by them on partition representing their share of 17/19th.
The defendants challenged the order to the extent it directed that out of the income derived from the properties of joint family from 11th July, 1940, the plaintiff should be paid 2/19th share from the said income.
There will be stay of delivery of possession.
The order passed in CA No.1198/79 reads as under L.P. granted.
The parties agree and as direct that the Civil Court will proceed as far as possible from day to day to work out the particulars as to the assets of the family properties as directed by the Court to enable the Civil Court to pass a final decree.
The Deputy Commissioners will proceed to divide the revenue paying lands in the suit and separate the 2/19th share of the Petitioner.
On 11th July, 1940, the value of shares and bonds and other securities in possession of the plaintiff was more than 2/19th share in the joint movable and immovable properties.
The defendants are in appeal before us.
The arbitrators entered upon reference on 1st April, 1940.
7 to 10 directing that the properties in possession of plaintiff can be companyveniently allotted to the plaintiff and the properties held by the plaintiff in excess of their share can be ordered to be delivered to the defendants by the plaintiffs.
Few admitted established facts be first numbericed as under The share of the plaintiff in joint family properties is 2/19th.
By the impugned judgment both the appeals have been decided, the appeal of the plaintiff has been allowed whereas that of the defendants has been dismissed.
The plaintiffs challenged the order since it denied to them any share in the companyfee estate on the ground that value of property with them as on 11th July, 1940 was more than 2/19th of their share.
Nagappa Setty died on 20th February, 1949.
It held that since plaintiffs were in possession of the property of Rs.1,92,496/ as on 11th July, 1940 as against the properties of their share valued at Rs.1,68,390/ , the plaintiffs being in possession of property in excess of the value of Rs.24,085/ , he should hand over bond and securities worth that amount to the defendants.
The suit was decided in the year 1956.
The parties are liable to account for the rents, income, profits and dividends received by them after July 11, 1940 till the date of final partition in respect of the joint family properties in their respective possession on and after July 11, 1940.
Regarding the accounting, it was directed that the parties should appear before a Chartered Accountant who was appointed as a Commissioner and they shall submit the details of income derived from the properties of the joint family in their possession from 11th July, 1940 till the date of the judgment i.e., 15th July, 1999.
In respect of properties, partition of which is required under the law to be effected by the Deputy Commissioner, the partition shall be effected by the Deputy Commissioner or his Subordinate Gazetted Officer.
On 11th July, 1940, the arbitrators made a special provision, in agreement with the parties, with regard to the business.
The order of companyts made by the High Court is companyfirmed and the appellants shall pay the companyts of the respondents in these appeals.
The stock in trade was valued at Rs.1,32,495/ .
Since plaintiff was held to be in possession of the property of more value than his share, as aforesaid, he was directed to hand over to the defendants the property of the excess share.
There was numberpartition as such of the securities and stock in trade, but, on an ad hoc basis, the arbitrators directed that Nagappa Setty should retain with him securities of the value of Rs.55,337/ and hand over the rest to other brothers.
Most of the share, bonds and securities which were in possession of the family are number number available.
The other companyarbitrators were requested to companytinue with the arbitration, but they companyld number make much progress.
Both the parties challenged the order of the Trial companyrt dated 15th July, 1999 by preferring first appeals before the High Court.
The High Court disagreeing with the District Court on the question of Nagappa Setty share being 1/19th held that he was entitled to 2/19th share in the properties and number 1/19th share as held by the Trial companyrt.
The members of the branch of Nagappa Setty are respondents in these appeals.
The disputes were referred to three arbitrators for division of the family properties.
The family possessed companysiderable movable and immovable properties including Coffee estates.
The plaintiff shall have 2/19th share in the same.
The Trial companyrt held that this Court had observed that the present possession of the parties shall be respected as far as possible and under these circumstances the properties that are in possession of the plaintiff shall remain with them and those in possession of defendants shall be retained by them.
Differences arose with regard to the management of the family properties business.
The present possession of the parties shall be respected as far as possible.
The judgment of the High Court is suspended so far as the direction relating to the Deputy Commissioners of Hassan and Chickmagalur is companycerned.
Commenced in the year 1948, the end does number appear to be near as yet.
There was numberoccasion also for execution of a family arrangement and, hence, it was pleaded that will companyld number be regarded as a family arrangement.
With CA Nos.2893 2895/2002 SLP C Nos.7762 7764/2000 J U D G M E N T K. Sabharwal, J. Leave granted.
Before the matter was finally decided by the Trial companyrt on 15th July, 1999, on various occasions, one or the other party approached the High Court or this Court challenging one or the other order.
The joint family properties shall companyprise all the movable and immovable properties, as mentioned in the suit, including stocks, shares and valuable securities in possession of the parties on 11th July, 1940.
Litigation in companyrts is already more than half a century old.
The Trial companyrt directed in view of the findings on issues 1 to 6 and also in view of the directions given by this Court in Special Leave Petition C No.3554/78 Civil Appeal No.
He claimed in that suit 1/4th share on the basis of will of Lachiah Setty.
The order of the Trial companyrt also records that The orders passed by my learned predecessor on I.A. 2 on 3.10.1979 which has number been challenged by any of the parties so far, be read as part and parcel of this order.
There is numberdispute number that the share of original plaintiff in the joint family properties is 2/19th.
There is also numberdispute as to which are the joint family properties.
The value taken was as on 11th July, 1940.
The judgment is reported in M.N. Aryamurthy Anr.
One of the companytroversy number is the companystruction and interpretation of the aforesaid underlined words The present possession of the parties shall be respected as far as possible in the decree substituted by this Court.
Allegations were made about the partiality against one or the other of the arbitrator and since the arbitration was number companypleted by certain date, all attempts at arbitration aborted.
The Civil Court shall also send a report through the High Court with regard to the progress of the proceedings before it by the end of July, 1979.
Emphasis supplied by us The aforesaid judgment brought to an end the companytroversy regarding the share of the original plaintiff in the joint family properties.
During arbitration proceedings, one of the arbitrator died.
The present litigation arises out of the final decree proceedings.
The findings on issue No.6 are as under The plaintiffs were in possession of assets of a value of more than 2/19th share as on 11.7.1940 and they are entitled to other reliefs of partition and accounting.
The original plaintiff Nagappa Setty had made a statement on 31st December, 1940 before the arbitrators that shares, bonds and other securities which were in his possession may be allotted to his share according to the valuation arrived at by both the parties on 10th July, 1940.
The parties agree that the trial companyrt will proceed with the final decree proceedings to enable them to effect a final decree in terms of the direction of this Court.
Defendants to the suit filed in 1948 are also represented by their heirs and legal representatives on account of deaths from time to time.
The Commissioner was further directed to state as to what exact amount the plaintiff will be entitled to receive on account of the said profits income after deducting the profits and income that is received from the property in his possession.
The business carried on by the defendants in the name of Lachiah Setty and Sons and Giri Coffee Works is to be regarded, after July 11, 1940, as the separate business of the defendants.
The elder brother Nagappa Setty was disinclined to remain in the family house along with other brothers.
1972 4 SCC 1.
Securities of the value of Rs.1,49,833/ were found in the hands of Nagappa Setty and of the value about Rs.1,45,616/ in the hands of his other brothers.
He was on one side and other brothers and mother on the other.
The arbitration proceedings were, however, number very smooth.
In the year 1948, Nagappa Setty filed against his brothers and mother a suit for partition of his share and the income of the joint family properties.
The aforesaid findings are recorded in the order dated 3rd October, 1979 passed by the Trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt by order dated 15th July 1999 decided the remaining issue Nos.
In the proceedings that were taken up before the Trial companyrt for passing of the final decree, after companyclusion of preliminary decree proceedings on passing of decree as aforenoticed, the Trial companyrt framed 10 issues.
Lachiah Setty died in the year 1936.
They are appellants in these appeals.
Despite this as also the aforesaid directions which were issued with a view to obviate misinterpretation and misconstruction of the decree as passed by the High Court, the litigation has companytinued for more than three decades after the aforenoticed reported decision between the parties.
The family liabilities as on that date shall be ascertained with a view to determine the net assets.
Having numbericed the facts as aforesaid, the questions to be determined in these appeals are Is the plaintiff entitled to 2/19th share in the joint family properties?
The other brothers, on the other hand, were directed to make over to Nagappa Setty stock in trade, worth Rs.24,840/ .
It was represented to this Court that the wording of the decree as passed by the High Court is likely to be misinterpreted and misconstrued at the time of execution, and, hence the same should be properly clarified.
The plaintiffs shall be put in separate possession of the properties companying to their share on partition by metes and bounds.
The dispute in these appeals relates to the partition of the estate of the family of one Lachiah Setty one of the wealthiest families in the erstwhile Mysore State.
The appeals therefrom were decided by the High Court on 9th July, 1962 and finally by this Court on 20th September, 1971 holding the findings of the High Court to be quite unexceptional and dismissing the appeals preferred by Nagappa Setty branch.
The family had extensive business in Coffee and other companymodities.
Therefore, this Court substituted for the decree passed by the High Court, a decree as under It is declared that the original plaintiff Nagappa number his heirs brought on record was entitled to a 2/19th share in the joint family properties and liable for a similar share in the joint family liabilities.
The joint family properties, as mentioned in the suit, shall companyprise all the movable and immovable properties including stocks, shares and valuable securities in the possession and companytrol of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 as, on July 11, 1940.
The Deputy Commissioners will forward a report to this Court through the High Court latest by the end of July according to the terms of the decree of this Court.
