Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ramaswami, J, did not expressly deal with the first question, presumably because (so far as he was concerned it was concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench in appeals against the, interlocutory order relating to the scope of the enquiry in the suit, but on the second and the third questions he held in favour of the plaintiffs. He held that for diverse reasons the "Full Bench judgment of the High Court was coram non judice" and therefore not conclusive within the meaning of s. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the evidence disclosed that the property movable and immovable set out in the scheduled to the plaint and the business conducted by Ramalingam belonged to the joint family of Ramalingam and his sons. He accordingly decreed the claim of the plaintiffs for possession of the property movable and immovable), set out in the Schedule to the plaint (except 1650 shares of the India Sugars and R efineries Ltd.) and directed an account of the management by the executors of the properties from the date of Ramalingam's death till delivery of possession of the properties to the plaintiffs. He also declared that the business carried on in the name of Oriental Films at 9 Stringers St., G. T. Madras, was the sole proprietary concern of the joint family and the profits realised from "Palmgrove" and Vegetable Oil Factory constituted the assets of the estate of Ramalingam subject to such equities as might arise in favour of Narayanaswami Mudaliar on the footing of the doctrine of Quantam Meruit to be determined by the final decree or execution proceedings."

Against the judgment of Ramaswami, J. the executors appealed to the High Court. The High Court observed that the decision of the Mysore High Court could not "take effect in respect of the immovable properties situate in the State of Madras ; but it could naturally affect the moveables situate there. In fact, the immovable properties in Madras State were not included in Mysore suits. It is therefore necessary for the members of Ramalingam's family to get rid of the decision of the Mysore High Court before they can have any chance of obtaining the movable properties of Ramalingam situate in the State." The High Court after an elaborate review of the evidence held that the estate which Ramalingam sought to dispose of by his will was joint-family estate, and he was on that account incompetent to dispose of the same, and the plaintiffs were entitled to the immovables in Madras, but as to movables the judgement of the Mysore High Court was conclusive there being no reliable evidence to establish the plea of "coram non judice". The High Court accordingly modified the decree of the trial Court. They confirmed the decree in so far as it related to immovables in Madras and dismissed it as to the rest. They further declared that the sale proceeds of a property called "Palmgrove"--which was execluded from the Schedule to the plaint in the Bangalore suit-,,constituted the assets of the said joint family" and on that footing gave certain directions.

The trial Judge dealt with the question under five heads:--

Firstly, that Vydialingam carried on the business of a building contractor. He had left. two houses which were unencumbered, and the contractor's business: these became joint- family estate in the hands of his son, and out of this estate Ramalingam's fortune was built: Secondly, that after the death of Rawalingain, his three sons carried on a joint family business. This joint-family business was attended to by the three brothers at different places and that the joint acquisitions were divided sometime in the year 1910 and each brother received a share of Rs. 34,000/- odd, and out of the share received by Ramalingam, estate devised by the will was acquired Thirdly, that Ramalingam received a share of the ancestral estate of the value of Rs. 40,000/- and also Rs. 12,500 as share of his wife out of the estate of Loganathan and the entire amount was invested in his business as a building contractor and out of this the estate in dispute was acquired :

This appeal arises out of a suit relating to an immovable property, Nose. 1 and 2 Waddels Road, Kilpauk, Madras. Of this property, the second respondent T. A. Ramchandra Rao was the former Owner. There were court proceedings in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1940 filed by Gajambal against T.A. Ramchandra Rao, and a compromise decree was passed in that suit and pursuant to that compromise, T. A. Ramchandra Rao sold the property to Gajambal by deed dated August 7, 1940. The executors of the estate of Ramalingam filed Suit, No. 91 of 1944 in the High Court of Madras against Gajambal and T. A. Ramchandra Rao for a declaration that the Waddels Road property formed part of the estate of Ramalingam and that Gajambal was merely a benamidar for Ramalingam, and for an order for possession of the property from Gajambal and T. A. Ramchandra Rao and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem from the date of Ramalingam's death till the date of delivery of possession to the executors Gajambal contended that the property belonged 'to her and that it was acquired by her out of her own funds. T.A. Ramchandra Rao denied the title of the executors and also liability to pay mesne profits. The suit was also tried with Suit No. 214 of 1944. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the executors but he declared that the property belonged to the sons of Ramalingam and they were entitled to possession and mesne profits. Against the decree passed by the trial Court the executors preferred an appeal to the High Court. The appeal was dismissed. In this appeal filed by the executors the principal ground set up in the Memo of appeal is that the sons of Ramalingam were not parties to the suit, and no decree directing the executors to deliver possession to the sons of Ramalingam could be passed.