6843 36 claimed by him as his personal Income as a lawyer from his profession from 1940 should be awarded to him with interest at 12 interest on the same and he also claimed as companysequential relief that the defendants should be ordered to account for the profits earned by them from the joint family business from the date of severance and also of the income derived by them from immoveable properties belonging to the joint family.
Out of that amount Rs.600 are to be taken by the managing agent every month and the remaining amount of Rs.400 Four hundred is to be divided among all the partners of the agency firm including Sulakhe, in proportion to their respective shares till the profits of the companypany companye to 10 by the way of divident so that the partners may get an interest over their amounts at the rate of 5 per annum, but from and after the date when the dividend of the companypany shall be distributed at the rate of 10 on the amount of shares, the other partners shall have numberright over the said sum of Rs.400 Four hundred to be received every month, and this amount is to be taken by the managing agent Mr. Sulakhe as the increase in his remuneration salary .
Bhagwant who filed a suit for partition as the plaintiff was the youngest of the four brothers.
In the suits various proceedings were taken and various orders including the appointment of the Court receiver for all the properties of the joint family were passed from time to time.
2 were impleaded and numberother members of their branches were made parties to the suit.
Thereafter attempts were made to divide the properties amicably between the parties without success.
All the shops were run in the name of P.N. Sulakhe.
On the basis of the managing agency agreement between the companypany and the firm of Sulakhe Co. the defendant No.
On the death of defendant No.
C Amended as per special Resolution No.
In the suit Govind as defendant No.
Sometime after the plaintiff Bhagwant had been appointed the managing agent, the defendant No.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 18/19/20/25/29.9.1967 and 9.10.1967 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal Nos.
It is number in dispute that all the shops were joint family businesses.
2 and also the plaintiff Bhagwant as managing agent and also the amount of companymission falling into the shares of defendant No.
2 Dattatraya filed two suits in the Court of Civil Judge against the companypany and the plaintiff for payment of the sum of money credited to the joint family in the books of the companypany in accordance with the respective shares of the parties.
By this letter, he made it clear that he was number prepared to throw any of these incomes into the point family hotch pot and he asked the defendant No.
C. Bhandare, D.R. Dhanuka, Mrs. Rani Chhabra K.H. Kapadia and G.B. Sathe for the Respondents.
He graduated in law in the year 1914 and companymenced practice as a lawyer at about that time.
It may be numbered that defendant No.
The defendants resisted the suit of the plaintiff on various grounds, mainly however on the ground that the plaintiff had asked for partition only of some of the joint family properties without including in the suit various other joint family properties, particularly the shares and interest of the joint family in the companypany.
The plaintiff Bhagwant in this suit claimed various other reliefs.
Disputes and differences between the parties became more acute and the plaintiff on 8.12.1941 intimated to the defendant No.
During the period when there were numberdisputes between the parties, the Directors fees paid to defendant No.
M. Tarkunde, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mukul Mudgal, Mrs. M. Karanjawala and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant.
It appears that everything did number go well with the members of the point family and disputes arose between the parties soon after the companymencement of the second world war.
As the High Court disposed of both the appeals by one companymon judgment and the two appeals which have been preferred against the same judgment have been heard together, this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.
We shall briefly indicate the facts material for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals.
On various other questions also, the High Court has held in favour of the defendants reversing the decision of the Trial Court.
Of the four sons Vishwanath died in 1910 leaving behind him his son Dattatraya who happens to be the second defendant in the suit.
In 1922, a public limited companypany named Lokmanya Mills Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company was intended to be floated and with that end in view, the defendant No.
2 Dattatraya and the plaintiff Bhagwant were treated as income of the point family and even the professional h income of the plaintiff Bhagwant earned by him as a lawyer was also thrown into the joint family hotch pot and Was treated as joint family income.
The defendants did number accept the claim of the plaintiff Bhagwant that the remuneration paid to him as managing agent by the companypany and the fees paid to him as the director of the companypany, companyld be his personal income and the defendants claimed that all such amounts received by him belonged to the joint family and formed part of the joint family properties.
278 and 279 of 1969.
He prayed for a direction that the immovable properties and the business at Bombay should be ordered to be partitioned under the directions of the Court, that the joint family firms should be wound up that the sum of Rs.
These two appeals have been filed with the certificate granted by the High Court against the judgment of the High Court by the plaintiff in the suit instituted by him for partition of joint family properties, for accounts and other reliefs mentioned in the plaint.
Ultimately Bhagwant filed a suit being suit No.
Business in all these three shops was carried on in the name of P.N. Sulakhe.
2 Dattatraya that all these amounts should be shown as his separate income for the purposes of income tax and should be credited to his personal Khata in Sarafi shop account.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
2 Dattatraya, the said defendants or either of them who would number be paid the entire sum of Rupees one Lac by the end of November, 1985 will be entitled to execute the decree for the said amount of Rupees one Lac or any part thereof which will remain unpaid with interest on the said amount, on the basis of the decree passed herein.
l Gopal and the defendant No.
From the time when products shall be begun to be manufactured in the mill, the managing agents are to receive a remuneration of Rs.1000 salary every month.
2 Dattatraya acted as the managing agent upto 1935 and thereafter the plaintiff Bhagwant, became the managing agent.
In the income tax returns filed on behalf of the joint family, all these amounts were shown as income cf the joint family.
166/43 in the original side of the High Court in Bombay.
1 Gopal during the pendency of the suit his five sons were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives.
2 in Extraordinary general meeting held on 18.3.1951 Until the Company is registered all expenses of whatever nature of and incidental to the promotion thereof shall be defrayed in the first instance by the firm of Agency as agreed between them.
Of the three shops one was a Sharafi shop at Barshi, another cloth shop at Barshi and the other a companymission Agency and Sarafi shop at Bombay.
The properties left by him included agricultural lands, a number of houses in Barshi and three shops.
2 Dattatraya and the plaintiff Bhagwant out of the companymission earned by the managing agency firm were treated as joint family properties and were shown in the point family books so long as disputes between the parties had number arisen.
One Pandarinath Martand Sulakhe died leaving behind him his sons Viswanath, Gopal, Govind and Bhagwant and companysiderable properties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SEN, J. This is an unfortunate litigation between near relations and this litigation between the parties is number going on for over four decades.
In this suit, Bhagwant the plaintiff did number made any reference to the managing agency of the companypany in the plaint and he claimed partition of the joint family shares and moveable and immovable properties mentioned in the plaint as belonging to the joint family, seeking to reserve his right under 0.
2622 2622A of 1969.
The companyrectness of the High Court judgment is questioned by the plaintiff in the appeals.
The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of the Trial Court and also in the judgment of the High Court.
The mill actually went into production in 1938.
The plaintiff Bhagwant claimed that the remunerations paid to him by the companypany as managing agent, the fees paid to him as director of the companypany and his income from his profession as a lawyer were his personal income and as such his personal property.
the High Court has substantially reversed the judgment of Trial Court.
Though Govind separated in 1914, the other brothers and the son of Vishwanath companytinued to remain joint and lived as members of the joint family.
1 and Dattatraya as defendant No.
2 Dattatraya was appointed as the Director of the Company.
2, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file a suit for partition of the joint family properties situated at Barshi.
By a companymon judgment delivered by the High Court in two separate appeals filed by the defendants in the suit against the judgment of the Trial Court.,
Managing agency agreement between the companypany and the partnership firm of Sulakhe Company was executed.
2 Dattatraya and the plaintiff Bhagwant entered into a partnership under the name and style of M s. Sulakhe Co. with four outsiders.
It appears that in the year 1935, a new Adat shop had been started at Barshi.
In this suit Gopal was the first defendant and Dattatraya was the second defendant and the suit was filed in the original side of the Bombay High Court on the basis that the Adat Shop and Sarafi Shop were situated within the original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
The defendants companytended that the plaintiff was bound to include in the suit all the joint family properties which also companyprised all the interests of the joint family in the companypany and various other immovable properties in the possession of the plaintiff.
2 Dattatraya informed him that the remuneration received by him as the managing agent of the companypany on the basis of the managing agency agreement, fees received by him as the director of the companypany and his income from his profession as lawyer were his personal income and should be treated as such.
The plaintiff Bhagwant by his letter dated 15th July, 1941 addressed to the defendant No.
Govind, one of the brothers who companystituted a joint family after the death of their father Pandarinath Sulakhe separated from the joint family in 1914 taking his share of the family properties.
2 Dattatraya his intention to cause severance of the joint family status.
