Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Narayan and Krishnarao continued to hold the suit property as joint tenants so that, on Krishnarao's death, the property devolved by survivorship on Narayan.
Analysis: The suit lands were ancestral and the family had earlier effected a partial partition of the jahagir income, after which some brothers separated in respect of the remaining property. The question whether the surviving brothers retained joint status had to be decided on the evidence of each case. The entries in the Record of Rights, the widow's subsequent entry, the separate savings and money-lending business of Krishnarao, and the surrounding conduct were all considered. On the whole evidence, the indication was against survivorship and in favour of separation in interest.
Conclusion: Narayan and Krishnarao were not joint tenants in the suit property, and survivorship did not apply.
Final Conclusion: The decree of the lower appellate court was upheld and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: After a partial partition in a joint Hindu family, the continued joint or separate character of the remaining property depends on the evidence as a whole, and survivorship cannot be inferred merely from joint descriptions in records where the surrounding circumstances point to separation.