Sri. A.S. Narayana Raju vs A.S. Kupparaju on 6 March, 2017
44. Plaintiff has taken contention that joint family
corpus are invested in various firms and companies shown in
'A' schedule, which not only resulted in accretion but also
resulted in accumulation and augmentation. Some of the
properties item No.3, 4, 7, 20 to 26 and 53 of 'B' schedule
property were converted into trading property by developing
the same into multistoried apartment buildings and as such
accounts require to be taken from all the joint family had
earned out of such ventures and plaintiff and defendants'
133 O.S.No.7904/2000
families are business families. Learned Advocate for the
plaintiff has placed reliance on the ruling reported in AIR
1998 SC 401 (Rasiklal vs. Commissioner of Income
Tax). The principle laid down in this case is amply applicable
to the present case in hand. Hence I answer issue Nos.1, 2
and 3 in the 'affirmative' and issue Nos.4 to 9 and issue
No.14 in the 'negative'.