TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns ruling, finds properties separate acquisitions, not joint family assets</h1> <h3>Chikkam Koreswara Rao Versus Chikkam Subbarao And Ors.</h3> Chikkam Koreswara Rao Versus Chikkam Subbarao And Ors. - 1971 AIR 1542, 1970 (1) SCC 558 Issues:- Determination of whether properties covered by Exh. B-6 were joint family properties available for partition in a family governed by Mitakshara law.Analysis:1. The central issue in this appeal was whether the properties covered by Exh. B-6 were part of the joint Hindu family's assets and thus subject to partition. The suit involved brothers in a joint family governed by Mitakshara law, with the 1st respondent seeking a share in the properties listed in the plaint-schedule. The trial Court initially granted a partition decree excluding properties covered by Exhs. B-2 to B-7 claimed as separate by the appellant.2. The High Court, however, held that properties under Exh. B-6 were joint family properties based on an alleged admission by the appellant during the proceedings. The High Court's decision primarily hinged on the appellant's statement regarding the origin of funds for Exh. B-6, where he mentioned that the consideration was paid by his father, leading to the conclusion that it was joint family property.3. The appellant contended that the funds for Exh. B-6 were sourced from his dowry, which he entrusted to his father for investment. The appellant's assertion was supported by his consistent claim that properties under Exhs. B-2 to B-7 were his separate acquisitions, as evidenced by his tax payments and lease deeds.4. The Supreme Court analyzed the appellant's statements and found that while he acknowledged his father's involvement in the transaction for Exh. B-6, it was within the scope of managing his private funds. The Court emphasized that the acquisitions under Exhs. B-2 to B-5 and B-7 were akin to that of Exh. B-6, all originating during the lifetime of the father, Reddinaidu.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the trial Court's decision. The Court found no substantial distinction between the properties under Exh. B-6 and those covered by Exhs. B-2 to B-5 and B-7, affirming them as the separate acquisitions of the appellant. No costs were awarded in the Supreme Court due to the circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
