The defence was that the trades run by both the brothers were parts of the joint family trade, and number separate to foster such a claim by the respondent on the appellant.
52 which belonged, to the 3rd defendant, were the self acquired properties of the defendant appellant.
The money suit was, howev er, transferred to the file of the Additional Sub Judge and tried together with the partition suit and was also de creed by the Additional Sub Judge of Alleppey on the same date as the partition suit.
3, one of the four brothers, but all of them were impleaded in the partition suit.
this appeal has been instituted by the respondent against the appellant for money due on 14 10 1123 on account of tobacco delivered to the latters shop.
The High Court rejected the submission of the defendant appel lant that, when the Tobacco business under companysideration was started, Narayana being the Karta of the family, the fact that the eldest son, Venkateswara, the defendant appel lant, was carrying on the business, raised a presumption that it was the separate or self acquired business of Venka teswara.
existence after the filing of the.
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 28th July, 1964 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No 843 of 1960 .
The two appeals were heard and decided together by the High Court.
the exact source of the.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
fund with which the first defendant started the trade.
35 and a part of item No.
partition suit which operated as a clear unequivocal expression of intention to separate.
S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and M.R. Pillai,.
The High Court re versed this finding on the ground that there was little reliable evidence on record as to.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. This is a defendents appeal by Certificate granted by the Kerala High Court under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution as a matter of companyrse before its amendment because the High Court had modified a decree in a partition suit and the subject matter satisfied the requirements of the unamended Article 133.
The High Court allowed the appeal, modifying the decree to the extent that 3/4th share of items 4 to 72 of the schedule, except item 35 and part of 52 standing in the name of the 3rd defendant, were held to, be partible properties as part of Joint family business, but it excluded assets which came into.
The partition suit was filed originally in another Court but was sent to the Court of the Second Additional Sub Judge of Alleppey in 1957, and the preliminary decree was passed on 5th August, 1960.
The defendant appellant, Venkateswara, was the eldest of the four sons of Narayana.
S. Krishnamoorthy, P.K. Pillai and N. Sudhakaran, for Respondent No.
1763 of 1968.
C. Raghavan, Sardar Bahadur Saharya and V.B. Saharya, for the appellant.
The partition suit related to 72 items mentioned in schedule A to the plaint claimed by the plaintiff to be joint family property.
for Respondent No.
It also, left the extent of mesne profits of landed properties to be decided in proceedings for the passing of the final decree.
The parties to the partition suit are descendants of Narayana Prabhu hereinafter referred to as Narayana .
The companyrt below, having found in the other suit the shops run by the parties to belong to the companycerned individuals, has decreed the suit.
due to his own enter prise and exertions and ability in carrying on business.
The Trial Court had accepted the case of the defendant appellant that all items, except No.
It appeals that the defendant appellant had also filed a money suit in the Court of the Munsif only against defendant No.
The High Court relying on certain documentary evidence, including the letter heads showing the business as that of P. N. Venkateswara Prabhu Brothers held that the business was joint family business.
Krishna, the plaintiff number dead was the 3rd son of Nara yana.
The plaintiff respondent had appealed against both the decrees in the High Court.
