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>Court rules on family asset division in managing agency resignation case, increases daughters' marriage provision</h1> <h3>R.V. Manicka Mudaliar Versus V.M. Thangavelu and Ors.</h3> The Court held that the sum received as solatium for resigning from the managing agency was a joint family asset, entitling the plaintiff to a quarter ... - Issues Involved:1. Divisibility of the sum received as solatium for the resignation of the managing agency.2. Ownership of the amount standing to the credit of the first defendant's second wife.3. Ownership of certain items of jewelry.4. Adequacy of the marriage provision for the two daughters.Detailed Analysis:1. Divisibility of the Sum Received as Solatium for the Resignation of the Managing Agency:The primary contention was whether the sum of Rs. 2,63,200-62 received by the first defendant as solatium for resigning from the managing agency of Pullicar Mills Ltd. was a divisible joint family asset. The Court delved into the history of the managing agency business, tracing it back to the first defendant's father, Vaiyapuri, who promoted the company and managed the agency as a family business. The managing agency was treated as a joint family firm even after the partition in 1942. The first defendant's admission that 'Vaiyapuri Mudaliar and Sons is a joint family firm' was crucial. The Court held that the managing agency business was a joint family asset, and the sum received as solatium was also a joint family asset. The plaintiff was entitled to a quarter share of this amount.2. Ownership of the Amount Standing to the Credit of the First Defendant's Second Wife:The sum of Rs. 4800 standing to the credit of Sampoornam, the first defendant's second wife, was claimed not to be a joint family asset. The evidence showed that Sampoornam purchased shares from her own money and invested the proceeds in Jawahar Mills. The Court acknowledged her affluence and noted that she was not a party to the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim to this amount was not sustainable.3. Ownership of Certain Items of Jewelry:Items 11, 12, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 29 in the Commissioner's inventory were claimed by the first defendant as belonging to his second wife. The Court found no evidence to establish that these items were family assets. The plaintiff failed to prove that these were the same items obtained by the first defendant in the 1942 partition. Thus, the plaintiff's claim regarding these jewelry items was dismissed.4. Adequacy of the Marriage Provision for the Two Daughters:The Court considered the provision of Rs. 2000 for each of the first defendant's two unmarried daughters as inadequate. Given the family's wealth and status, the Court found this amount ludicrously low. The first defendant's testimony suggested that a sum of Rs. 5000 was typically spent on marriages, with an additional Rs. 10,000 for jewelry. The Court decided that Rs. 10,000 for each daughter was a more appropriate provision, reflecting the family's affluence and social standing. This amount should be incorporated into the final decree, and the Court suggested possibly investing these amounts in the names of the minor girls.Conclusion:The decree of the lower court was confirmed with the modification regarding the marriage provision for the daughters. The litigation stemmed from a familial dispute, and both parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
