Impartible estate succession and incorporation of self-acquired property depend on survivorship, intention, and the nature of the assets.

In an ancestral impartible estate governed by Mitakshara law, survivorship continues unless junior members clearly renounce their chance of succession; mere separation in food and worship is insufficient. Immovable self-acquired property may be incorporated into the estate by express or implied intention and then devolve with it, but movable property cannot be so incorporated on the same basis. Claims for rents, royalties and other sums accrued during the Raja's lifetime were treated as part of the same cause of action, and amounts paid under the bantannamas were allowable as credits in adjusting the parties' rights. The decree was therefore modified with further inquiry and consequential directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the family remained joint so that the defendant succeeded to the impartible estate by survivorship. (ii) Whether immovable and movable self-acquired properties could be incorporated with an ancestral impartible estate. (iii) Whether the claim to rents, royalties and other accrued sums, and the set-off of money paid under the bantannamas, were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the family remained joint so that the defendant succeeded to the impartible estate by survivorship.

Analysis: For an ancestral impartible estate governed by Mitakshara law, the incidents of partition, restraint on alienation, and maintenance may be excluded by custom, but the right of survivorship remains. To show that the family has ceased to be joint for succession purposes, there must be proof that the junior members intended to renounce their chance of succession. Mere separation in food and worship is not enough.

Conclusion: The family had not severed status, and the defendant was entitled to succeed to the impartible estate by survivorship.

Issue (ii): Whether immovable and movable self-acquired properties could be incorporated with an ancestral impartible estate.

Analysis: A holder of an ancestral impartible estate may, by express or implied intention, incorporate immovable self-acquired properties with the estate so that they take the incidents of the estate and devolve with it. The same principle does not extend to movable property, because movables and the income of an impartible estate do not become accretions to the estate in the same manner as immovable additions. Incorporation depends on intention proved from the facts.

Conclusion: Immovable properties could be incorporated, and the defendant succeeded to items 2 to 7 of Schedule ka and items 1 to 8 of Schedule kha; movable property could not be so incorporated.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim to rents, royalties and other accrued sums, and the set-off of money paid under the bantannamas, were maintainable.

Analysis: The claim to rents, royalties and similar sums accrued during the Raja's lifetime was sufficiently covered by the plaint, and it arose from the same cause of action as the claim to the immovable properties. The amount said to have been paid under the bantannamas was also treated as a credit in adjusting the parties' rights.

Conclusion: The claim and the credit were maintainable, and the decree required corresponding adjustment.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part, the defendant's entitlement to the ancestral impartible estate and specified immovable properties was upheld, the movable properties were treated separately, and the matter was remitted for further inquiry and consequential directions.

Ratio Decidendi: In an ancestral impartible estate, survivorship continues unless junior members clearly renounce succession, and self-acquired immovable property may be incorporated into the estate by a proved intention to alter its mode of devolution, though movable property cannot be so incorporated.

---