Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955

Smt.N. Shanthakumari vs ) Sri N. Raju on 27 February, 2023

29. The decisions cited by the learned defence counsel re reported in Bhagwat Sharan (dead) through LRs v/s Purushotham and others in (2020)6 SCC 387, in G. Narayana 28 O.S.No.7074/2015 Raju (dead) by his Lrs v/s G. Chamaraju and others in AIR 1968 SUPREME COURT 1276, in Chattanatha Karayalar v/s Ramachandra Iyer and another in AIR 1955 SC 799, in P.S. Sairam and another v/s P.S. Rama Rao Pissey and others in (2004)11 SCC 320 and in S. Subramanian v/s S. Ramaswamy, etc., etc., in AIR 2019 SC 3056. In all these decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has well settled position of law that the burden is on a person who alleges existence of HUF to prove the same and the proof is required not only with respect to jointness of family but also with respect to the fact that property belonged to the joint family unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of joint Hindu family or that it was acquired through funds coming out of such nucleus. These material requirements have not been satisfied by P.W.1 in the instant case by producing before the Court cogent materials to show the alleged acquisition of nucleus by the joint family and the subsequent purchase of other properties, out of such nucleus. Therefore in the absence of any such convincing materials it cannot be said that suit item No.2 to 6 properties were acquired out of joint family nucleus so as to treat them either as ancestral or as joint family properties. Consequently she cannot question the partition of 2001 under Ex.P.4 as null and void and not binding on her since the earlier partition as per Ex.P.3 itself has remained unchallenged by her.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madan Lal vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 6 December, 1968

8. These cases show that, if the father and sons jointly start the business, then it may be presumed that the entire business is joint family business. But the case before us is not of this type. The finding of the Central Board of Revenue is that the business was started by Sukhdeo and, as there was no nucleus of joint family property for starting that business, it remained the business of the father in spite of the fact that later on the sons may have assisted the father in carrying on that business. In our opinion, there is no presumption under the Hindu law that a business started by any member of the joint family is a joint family business. It makes no difference whether the member starting the business is the father of the coparcenary or karta of the family. This is the law which has been approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Iyer, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 799, 800 ; [1955] 2 S.C.R. 477, 481 in the following passage :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Chandmull Rajgarhia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 3 February, 1966

Learned counsel for the revenue place before us the cases of Lakki Reddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakki Reddi Lakshmana, Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa and Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Iyer to emphasise upon some of the well-known principles, such as business in the name of member of a joint family has no presumption of jointness; the abandonment of exclusive claim to separate property cannot be inferred from the act of generosity; strong evidence of intention of blending is necessary to be establish. It is not necessary to go into the details to those cases.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Deo Narayan Bhadani And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 April, 1986

In this connection, Mr. K.N. Jain, for the assessee, has relied on the case of Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Iyer [1956] SCJ I ; AIR 1955 SC 799, which is a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In this case, it has been held that under the Hindu law, there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of any member is a joint family one even when that member is the manager of the family, and it makes no difference in this respect that the manager is the father of the coparceners.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

G. Narayana Raju vs G. Chamaraju & Others on 19 March, 1968

The first question to be considered in this appeal is whether the business of Ambika Stores was really the business of the joint family and whether the plaintiff was entitled. to a partition of his share in the assets of that business.: It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the business of Ambika Stores grew out of a nucleus of the joint family funds of at least by the efforts of the members of the joint family include the appellant. The contention of the appellant has been negatived by both the lower courts and there is a concurrent finding that the Ambika Stores was the separate business of Muniswami Raju and it was neither the joint family business nor treated as joint family business, It is wellestablished that there is no presumption under Hindu law that a business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint family business even if that member is the manager, of the joint family. Unless, it could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate, the business remains free and separate. The question therefore whether the business was begun or carried on with the assistance of joint family property or joint family funds or as a -family business is a question of fact.-(See the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Bhwu Mal v. Jagannath (1) and in Pearey Lal v. Nanak Chand (1) and of this Court in Chattahatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra (1) A.T.R 1943 P.C 40.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 70 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 3 Next