As there was numberjoint family property of Pallaniappa and the respondent at the time of Pallaniappas ,death, the respondent companyld number claim half the property on the ground that it was joint family property of himself and Pallaniappa, as Pallaniappas election to take under the will of his father would bind the respondent also.
K. Sen and R. Ganapathji Iyer, for respondent.
The High Court dismissed the appeal.
B. Agarwala, B. Dutta, T. S. Krishnaswamy Iyenr, P. L. Meyyappan and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
30 of 1956 came into force.
We have to proceed on the basis that even though Pallaniappas father said in the will that the properties, except a small part, were his self acquired properties,.
The reply on behalf of the respondent to this companytention was two fold.
R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhury, for respondent No.
The appellant then appealed to the High Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July 13, 1962, of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
39 of 1925 also.
on September 16, 1956 after the Hindu Succession Act, No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court.
The facts are number number in dispute and may be briefly narrated.
This finding was upheld by the High Court and is number number in dispute.
in fact all the properties mentioned in the will of Pallaniappas, father were joint family properties of Pallaniappa and his father.
This interest of the respondent in the joint family property was independent of his father Pallaniappa and even though Pallaniappa might be bound by any election that he might have made the respondent would number be so bound and would be entitled to treat the property as joint family property in the hands of, Pallaniappa in which he would acquire interest on being adopted.
In 1941 the respondent was adopted by Pallaniappa.
1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent against Villiammi Achi appellant and Nachiammai Achi number dead and represented by her legal representative.
Reliance in this companynection was placed ,on S. 180 of the Indian Succession Act, No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
347 of 1958.
CI/67 15 Pallaniappa companyld acquire by survivorship, the companyduct of Pallaniappa in obtaining probate of the will and carrying out its terms amounted to election and thereafter Pallaniappa became absolute owner of the residue of the properties bequeathed to him by the will.
The facts on which this claim was based are number number in dispute and are these.
In the trial companyrt there was a dispute between the parties whether Pallaniappa and his father were members of a joint Hindu family and whether properties left by Pallaniappas father were the joint family properties of both.
The trial companyrt accepted the case put forward on behalf of the respondent and decreed the suit passing a preliminary decree giving two thirds share to the respondent and one sixth each to the appellant,, and the mother of Pallaniappa.
The respondent claimed two thirds share of the properties left by his father, Pallaniappa and prayed for a decree for separate possession of that share after partition.
The appellant is the widow of Pallaniappa and Nachiammai Achi was Pallaniappas mother.
Pallaniappa died.
A suit was brought by Nagappa Chettiar, respondent No.
In the second place the respondents case was that in any case after his adoption Pallaniappa threw the ,entire property into the family hotch pot and therefore it became joint family property by blending.
It was further urged that even assuming that there companyld be election by Pallaniappa the respondent would number be bound by that election as the property left by his grandfather was joint family property and the respondent would acquire interest therein as soon is he was adopted by Pallaniappa, even though Pallaniappa might have been the sole companyparcener for sometime i. e. between 1934 and 1941.
having been adopted in 1941.
This Nagappa made a will on June 10, 1934 by which after making certain dis positions, in favour of certain persons including his own wife he gave the residue of his property absolutely to Pallaniappa and appointed him as the executor of the will.
In one place the will stated that all the property except a small part was the exclusive and self acquired property of the testator while at the end the testator said that he had made the will with the full companysent of his son Pallaniappa After Nagappas death in July 1934 Pallaniappa obtained probate of the will and after providing for the legacies to others as indicated therein came into possession of the residue of the property.
The respondent is the adopted son of Pallaniappa.
The case of the appellant was that even though the properties left by Pallaniappas father were joint family properties which MISup.
806 of 1964.
Pallaniappas father also named Nagappa had companysiderable properties.
But it has been found that all the properties left by Pallaniappas father were joint family properties of Pallaniappa and his father which Pallaniappa companyld acquire by survivorship on his fathers death.
The companysequence of this was that when Pallaniappa adopted the respondent in 1941 long after he had become the absolute owner of the properties, the respondent acquired numberinterest in the properties left by his grand father by virtue of the adoption.
