As pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Attorney General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar, 1957 A.C. 540, it is only by analyzing the nature of the rights of the members of the undivided family, both those in being and those yet to be born, that it can be determined whether the family property can properly be described as joint property of the undivided family.
The father and son were domiciled in India and had trading and other interests in India, Ceylon and Far Eastern companyntries.
The District Judge took the view that the will executed by Dulichand was valid so far as half of his share in the house was companycerned and, therefore, defendant was entitled to claim half the share of the house in dispute.
In that case one Arunachalam Chettiar and his son companystituted a joint family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law.
Sometime before his death Sitabai adopted plaintiff number 2 Suresh Chandra and an adoption deed was executed on March 4, 1958.
Plaintiff Sitabai is the widow of Bhagirath, who pre deceased Dulichand, his elder brother sometime in 1930.
The undivided son died in 1934 and Arunachalam became the sole surviving companyarcener in the Hindu undivided family to which a number of female members belonged.
Court held that plaintiff number 2 became the son of plaintiff number 1 in 1958 from the date of adoption and did number obtain any companyarcenary interest in the joint family properties.
It is the admitted case of both the parties that after Bhagirath died, the plaintiff Sitabai was living with Dulichand as a result of which companynection an illegitimate child defendant Ramchandra was born in 1935.
It is the admitted case of both the parties that the properties companysisted of agricultural land and a house jointly held by Bhagirath and Dulichand.
This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated September 7, 1965 in Second Appeal No.
At the time when plaintiff number 2 Suresh Chandra was adopted the joint family still companytinued to exist and the disputed properties retained their character of companyarcenary properties.
It was held by this Court that since the property which came into the hands of Buddanna as the sole surviving companyarcener was originally joint family property, it did number cease to belong to the joint family and income from it was assessable in the hands of Buddanna as income of the Hindu Undivided Family.
The defendant preferred a second appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which reversed the decree of the lower companyrts and held that the plaintiff was number entitled to any relief and the suit should be dismissed in its entirety.
The trial companyrt decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and A granted the plaintiffs a decree for possession with regard to the land and the house.
As regards the house the companytention of the defendant was that Dulichand had executed a will before his death making a bequest of his house entirely to him.
After the death of Dulichand Ramchandra took possession of the joint family properties.
After the death of Bhagirath, Dulichand became the sole surviving companyarcener of the joint family.
Dulichand died on March 13, 1958.
The suit was companytested by the defendant on the ground that Dulichand had in his lifetime surrendered the lands to the Jagirdar who made re settlement of the same with the defendant.
It has been pointed out in Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income tax, Mysore 60 I.T.R. 293 S.C. that under the Hindu system of law a joint family may companysist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members and that the property of a joint family did number cease to belong to a joint family merely because the family is represented by a single companyarcener who possesses rights which an absolute owner of property may possess.
The plaintiff therefore brought the present suit for ejectment of the defendant Ramchandra, the illegitimate son of Dulichand from the disputed properties.
Dulichand and Bhagirath were brothers and the properties companycerned are, according to the written statement of the defendant himself, ancestral.
275 of 1962.
The High.
The defendant took the matter in appeal to the District Judge who modified the decree.
Buddappa died and after his death the question arose whether the income of the properties held by Buddanna as the sole surviving companyarcener was assessable as the individual income of Buddanna or as the income of the Hindu Undivided Family.
Arunachalam died in 1938, shortly after the Estate Ordinance number 1 of 1938 came into operation in Ceylon.
