Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.79 seconds)Manickam Chetti vs Kamalam on 22 October, 1936
12. Mr. Narasinga Rao referred to certain observations of Venkatasubba Rao J. in 'Manicbam Chetti v. Kamalam ', AIR 1937 Mad 335 (C). That was a case where there was already a partition and allotments of properties and a further claim was made as regards certain business and other properties and in considering the nature of the business whether it was joint family or separate, the learned Judge observed as follows: "There is no doubt that the business had been carried on with the aid of joint family funds, and that circumstance would prima facie make it a joint family concern. When coparcenary funds are employed there may be one of two intentions, either that the concern belongs to an individual member, his share being debited with the sums employed or what is more natural that the concern was carried on for the Joint benefit." With these observations we are in respectful agreement. The business in that case was carried on with the aid of joint family fund and not merely started with a contribution from the joint family. The question is one of intention on the part of the members starting the business & the intention of the other members of the family as to the manner in which they treated the business, and such ail intention must be established by sufficient evidence. That evidence is lacking in the present case.
Annamalai Chetti vs Subramanian Chetti on 7 January, 1892
In 'Annamalai v. Subramanian', AIR 1929 PC 1 (A), Lord Buckmaster observed that a member of a Joint undivided family can make separate acquisition of property for his own benefit, and unless it can be shown that the business grew from Joint family property, or that
the earnings were blended with Joint family estate, they remain free and separate and that the burden of proving in a partition action that any particular item of property is joints primarily rests upon the person who sets up a case of a joint family nature.
1