Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The unsuccessful' plaintiff in O.S. No. 3 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam, is the appellant. Originally the suit was numbered is O.S. No. 42 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam. The suit is one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one-third share in the suit properties and for future profits. The plaintiff's case is that his paternal grand-father Rajagopal Pillai started a photo business in 1917 under the name and style of Sri Krishna. Photo Studio. The first defendant is the plaintiff's father and the second defendant is the step-brother of the plaintiff. It is claimed that the first defendant got himself associated with his father in the photo business and both of them ran it as a joint family business. When the grandfather Rajagopal Pillai became old, the first defendant, was in sole charge of the studio and the business and the plaintiff after completing the school course, participated in the same and contributed his labour also. Thus, the family photo business was continued after the death of Rajagopal Pillai in 1965 and considerable properties were acquired from and out of the profits of the business. The plaintiff says that he became an expert in the said business and the grand-father himself till his death was doing the sedentary part of the business. As the joint family had no other business or source of earning except the photo studio, the plaintiff acquired a right by birth in the family activity and the assets secured in exercise of such profession. The family acquired the house in which the studio is at present situate besides agricultural lands of an extent of 6.80 acres in Serukudi village from and out of the business profits. It is claimed that large sums of money have also been deposited by the first defendant in his name in various banks. Soon after the death of the grand-father there were misunderstandings between the plaintiff and the first defendant, who was under the influence of his second wife and by the end of April, 1967 the bickerings compelled the plaintiff to demand a division of the joint family properties and allotment of his one-third share to him. The plaintiff also refers to a partition in the family to which he was a party but claims that it is an unstamped and unregistered document and, therefore, would not bind him. As the first defendant refused to effect any proper division of the properties and give his one-third share, though such a demand was made through mediators, he had to file the present action claiming a one-third share in the plaint A to D schedule properties. A schedule properties deal with the materials in the photo studio; B schedule refers to a house in Thiruvarur town. C schedule deals with the agricultural lands and the D schedule refers to a deposit of a sum of Rs. 10,000 made by the first defendant in the Indian Overseas Bank at Thiruvarur.

2. In the first defendant's written statement he admits that the plaintiff was living with him till April, 1967. Thereafter the plaintiff was living separately with his wife. It is denied that the photo studio called Sri Krishna Photo Studio is a joint family business and the properties mentioned in the various schedules to the plaint arc joint family properties. Rajagopal Pillai, the grand-father of the plaintiff was a public servant employed as a clerk in the Sub-Registrar's Office in the first instance and later in the railways. Rajagopal Pillai thereafter started a business in watch and clock repairs and later learnt photography and was carrying on a mere photography business at Nagapattinam and Thiruthuraipundi and was not even successful. He was adjudicated as an insolvent and the first defendant emphatically denies that there were any ancestral nucleus left by Rajagopal Pillai for the first defendant to exploit the same. The first defendant's independent case is that he was trained by one G. V. Naidu, photographer of Nagapattinam and he became proficient in it. With a paltry sum of Rs. 130 given to him by his maternal uncle, he purchased a camera and carried on the profession as a photographer at Thiruvarur. Thereafter he started a photo studio of his own at Thiruvarur and with the funds provided by his paternal aunt, he opened the studio Sri Krishna photo studio on 19th February, 1931. Thereafter he had to borrow some moneys for purchases of cameras and equipment and thus, no funds were provided by his father and no photographic equipment was inherited by him to continue the so-called photographic business of Rajagopal Pillai, the grand-father of the plaintiff. Thereafter, this studio was shifted to a pucca building and with the borrowings made from third parties and banks, the first defendant continued his own separate studio business as the proprietor thereof. In course of time, he improved the business and began to deal with the photographic materials and earning income therefrom. He lent moneys on mortgages and purchased immovable properties mentioned in the schedules and they are his sole and separate properties. The house and the agricultural lands are not joint family properties and the plaintiff has no interest or right by birth in them. The allegation that the plaintiff assisted his grand-father as well as the first defendant in conducting the alleged photographic business started by Rajagopal Pillai in 1917 is denied. The plaintiff if at all was writing some accounts and beyond that no contribution was made by the plaintiff in acquiring the schedule mentioned properties. The bank deposit of Rs. 10,000 is denied. The first defendant also refers to some mediation at the instance of respectable persons and the fact that a draft partition deed was drawn up whereunder the first defendant was prepared to give the plaintiff an ex-gratia sum of Rs. 4,501 and five mas of land so that the plaintiff could live upon it and maintain himself. The first defendant also refers to a release deed which the plaintiff had to execute incorporating the terms agreed upon during the course of mediation. Though the plaintiff signed a copy of such deeds and affixed his signature thereto, he wriggled out of the situation and at the instance of his friends, has filed this suit on false allegations. The plaintiff's claim of one-third share in the schedule mentioned properties is denied.

8. The foundation of the appellant's case is that it was the grand-father Rajagopal Pillai, who started the photo studio and the ancillary photographic business. If this basis or hypothesis on which the edifice of this argument is built, is taken out, then the plaintiff should naturally fail. Rajagopal Pillai was a Government servant. He was working in the Sub-Registrar's office for sometime and later on in the railways. He was for sometime doing business in watch repairs. Thereafter he got a camera on a hire purchase and was taking photos. He was later adjudicated insolvent in 1927. This by itself is sufficient to discredit the story of the plaintiff as well as his witnesses that there was ancestral nucleus left by Rajagopal Pillai for the first defendant to continue the same. Exhibit B-90 is the insolvency petition. Exhibit B-91 is the affidavit filed by Rajagopal Pillai pleading inability to pay his debts. Exhibit B-92 is the application for discharge, which was pending till 30th October, 1928. The final order of discharge was made directing Rajagopal Pillai to deposit a sum of about Rs. 25 for distribution amongst his creditors and he was given six months time for payment. It is, therefore, seen that Rajagopal Pillai was unable to make both ends meet even in 1928, as he could not pay the sum of Rs. 25 in one lump sum and he wanted six months time for payment of the same. Rightly, therefore, the lower Court stated that it would be unwise to comprehend that Rajagopal Pillai was conducting a photo studio during 1927 and 1928 and that too at Thiruvarur, a place not mentioned in Exhibits B-90 and B-92. It was only in 1931 that the first defendant started his own photo business. There is no link to prove that the grand-father provided the father of the plaintiff with funds during 1929 and 1930 to enable the father to start a photo studio business at Thiruvarur in 1931. When the first defendant started his studio in 1931, it may be that Rajagopal Pillai was assisting him. When Rajagopal Pillai associated himself with his son's new photo business at Thiruvarur, proclaiming that his son was the proprietor of the concern, that is sufficient admission on the part of Rajagopal Pillai that he had nothing to do with the new photo business started by his son. Exhibits B-2, B-48 to B-59 establish that the grand father admitted that he was receiving only a salary of Rs. 25 or Rs. 35 as an employee in the photographic business of his son. The conduct of Rajagopal Pillai throughout gives the lie direct to the plaintiff's case that Rajagopal Pillai was the author of Sri Krishna Studio, Thiruvarur and that his association with the said business of which the first defendant was the proprietor was in the status of a member of an undivided joint family. The plaintiff did not let in any evidence to show that the grandfather handed over at least a camera to the first defendant as an undischarged insolvent or after discharge for him to continue the so-called joint family business. The contention, however, is that the grand-father was also interested in his son's business and that he contributed sufficient labour for raising a presumption that there was a joint family activity. It is not every sporadic or unimpressive contribution by a member of the joint family, may be the father, that would make the resultant activity, a joint family activity. The contribution of labour, service or money by one member of the joint family to the other should be so conspicuous and impressive that on a prima facie, examination of such material, a reasonable and a prudent person should gain the impression that the two members were so associated with the common object of exploiting a commercial activity to the advantage of the joint family as a whole and in general. In the instant Case, the grand-father was writing accounts acknowledging that the father was the sole proprietor of the Thiruvarur photo business. The grand-father also accepts that he was receiving a salary for such service rendered. The surrounding circumstances also belie the tall story of the plaintiff that the grand-father and the father so associated themselves so as to make their joint activity a joint family venture. In the absence of such essential features, which would make such contribution by one member to the other a commercial activity the intendment and purpose of which is to make it a joint family trade, it is hazardous to infer that such unisoned activity between the members should be equated to a co-ordinated activity on their part equatable to the activity of members of a Hindu joint family resulting in the properties acquired by such common exertions as joint family properties.

10. The plaintiff, however, wants to take advantage of certain advertisements made by his father to show that Krishna Photo Studio, Tiruvarur, is but a continuation of the quondam business of Rajagopal Pillai. Exhibit A-1 is an advertisement notice which shows that Krishna Photo Studio, Thiruvarur, was established in 1917. To the same effect are Exhibits A-2 and A-3. The lower Court rightly condemned these documents by examining them physically. We are also satisfied that these Exhibits could not have been printed in 1917. In that year no one comprehended the existence of a road named after Netaji. In fact, there was no such road in Thiruvarur as Netaji road as early as 1917. The first defendant explains these exhibits by saying that he adopted an advertisement puff to the effect that he started the business in 1917 so that he could compete with other rival photographers. We are not, therefore, satisfied that Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3 conclusively establish that there was a continuity of the joint family business by the first defendant when he started his studio at Thiruvarur. The plaintiff again relies upon Exhibits A-5 and A-6. They are written to third parties including P. W. 3. Exhibit A-6 bears a rubber stamp of Sri Krishna Studio Photographer, Thiruvarur. The letter is dated 28th March, 1930. The plaintiff wants to build up a case that this by itself establishes that the first defendant was continuing his father's business. Exhibits A-5 and A-6 do not contain any reference to such business. The plaintiff relies upon the rubber stamp impression on the letters. It would be unsafe to rely upon them for, as pointed out by the learned Judge, those impressions could easily be got affixed later by interested parties. The plaintiff also relies upon the evidence of P. W. 3, who is a relative, anxious to help the plaintiff. Exhibit A-7 is a photograph in which P. W. 3 and his relations are seated. According to P. W. 3 it was Rajagopal Pillai, who took the photograph in 1924. Exhibit A-7, as such does not disclose that the photograph was so taken. Even otherwise P. W. 3 says that the two children found in Exhibit A-7 would now be aged about 35 and 33, It, therefore, follows that the photo ought to have been taken only after 1933 and not in 1924 or before 1928. It is not clear from Exhibit A-7 whether Rajagopal Pillai was having a studio by name Sri Krishna Photo Studio in 1924. The manuscript writing on the photograph cannot be relied upon for the purpose. To a similar effect is another photograph Exhibit A-8, which does not mention that it was taken in the year 1938. The testimony of P.W. 3 is belied by the fact that he has no personal knowledge as to whether the studio was in existence in the year 1924. In fact, till 1928 Rajagopal Pillai was at Thiruturaipundi where his insolvency proceedings were pending. It is, therefore, unnatural and possibly unlikely that he would have continued his photographic business in 1928, when he was adjudicated an insolvent by then. P.W. 3 and the first defendant were not on amicable terms ever since 1933 and he appears to be a competitor in the trade. His evidence to the effect that he learnt photograph from Rajagopal Pillai and purchased a camera from him are all to be considered in the above light and particularly when he is not favourably disposed towards the first defendant. P. W 3's. testimony, therefore, does not further the plaintiff's case. P. W. 4 is another person, who was not on talking terms with the first defendant for 10 years and it is in this predicament he comes to help.