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.
After the death of Bhagirath, Dulichand became the sole surviving companyarcener of the joint family.
It has been pointed out in Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income tax, Mysore 1 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 defendant took the matter in appeal to the District Judge who modified the decree.
Sometime before his death Sitabai adopted plaintiff number 2 Suresh Chandra and an adoption deed was executed on March 4, 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 7, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Second Appeal No.
In that case, one Buddappa, his wife, his two unmarried daughters and his unmarried son, Buddanna, were members of a Hindu undivided family.
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.
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 suit was companytested by the defendant on the ground that Dulichand had in his lifetime surrendered the lands to the Jagirdar who made resettlement of the same with the defendant.
In that case one Arunachalam Chettiar and his son companystituted a joint family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law.
The High 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.
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.
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.
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.
The High Court thought that on the date of adoption Dulichand was the sole companyarcener and there was numberody else to take a share of his property and plaintiff number 2 had numberconcern with the companyarcenary property in the hands of Dulichand.
Arunachalam died in 1938, shortly after the Estate Ordinance number 1 of 1938 came into operation in Ceylon.
As a pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Attorney General of Ceylon v.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar 2 it is only by analysing 1 60 I.T.R. 293 S.C. 2 1957 A.C. 540.
The first question to be companysidered in this appeal is whether the High Court was right in holding that plaintiff number 2 Suresh Chandra at the time of his adoption by plaintiff number 1 did number become a companyarcener of Dulichand in the joint family properties.
The trial companyrt decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and granted the plaintiffs a decree for possession with regard to the land and the house.
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.
275 of 1962.
After the death of Dulichand Ramchandra took possession of the joint family properties.
Dulichand died on March 13, 1958.
The plaintiff therefore brought the present suit for ejectment of the defendant Ramchandra, the illegitimate son of Dulichand from the disputed properties.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A. Chitale and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
C. Chagla and A. K. Nag, for the appellants.
275 of 1962.
Plaintiff Sitabai is the widow of Bhagirath, who predeceased Dulichand, his eider brother sometime in 1930.
856 of 1966.
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.
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.
Dulichand and Bhagirath were brothers and the properties companycerned are, according to the written statement of the defendant himself, ancestral.
The father and son were domiciled in India and had trading and other interests in India, Ceylon and Far Eastern companyntries.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated September 7, 1965 in Second Appeal No.
