Case: Parbati Kuer Vs. Sarangdhar Sinha &amp; Others

with the Bank. It appears that the Bank had been advancing some sums from time to time to Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha, and at his death there was an overdraft which the two brothers said, was not binding on them, because the borrowings were not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family. This contention of the two brothers prevailed with the Court, and the result was that the decree of the Bank was passed only against the widow. We have not been able to see why the coparceners could not raise the plea that the borrowings of the karta were not for legal necessity nor for family purpose, and if that plea succeeded, how it estopped them claiming other joint family properties by survivorship. No doubt, the two brother have, by this means, managed to cast the burden of the Bank upon the widow, but however unfortunate that circumstances may be, it cannot have any effect upon the merits of the present suit.The Bank account, as we now find, was not of the separate property of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha but was meant to keep the money from the Press, and might well have been a joint family account. There is, however, evidence to show that Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha was in receipt of an allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month, and this also kept with the Bihar Bank. The entire family was thus dealing with the Bihar Bank as also Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha. Whether any portion of the liability should have fallen upon the two brothers or not is not a matter which we have to decide here, but it appears to us that whichever way one decides that question, the ownership of the three policies is not affected by the decision one way or the other.9. It was then argued, as a matter of law, that insurance was a special venture and was meant only for the benefit of the family of the assured and that the other coparceners had no interest in the policies. Reference was made to the proposal forms, Ex. 12 series, which were submitted by Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha to the companies, where the purpose of the insurance was shown to be for the benefit of the family of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha. It was contended that by family was meant the wife and children of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha. This might be true, but the question is not whether Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha took out the policies for the benefit of his own family but whether he did so without detriment to the joint family funds. If it was the latter, then anything obtained with the joint family funds would belong to the joint family, and this is the result, in view of our finding that it was the joint family which had paid for these policies and not Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha individually.It was also contended that the joint family was entitled to recoup the money which had been paid towards the purchase of the policies and not any additional sum which the insurance company had paid by reason of the early death of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha. We do not know on what this proposition rests. If the joint family purchased some property and it appreciated or gained in value, the benefit would go to the family and not to any individual. No authority was cited in support of such proposition.10. It was then argued, as a matter of law, that insurance policies must be placed in a separate category by themselves and the proceeds from them must be treated as individual property of those members on whose lives insurance policies were taken, though learned counsel for the appellant did not cite any authority in support of this proposition. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the decision in Venkata Subba Rao v. Laksminarasamma, AIR 1954 Mad 222 , where Rajamannar, C. J. and Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as he then was) observed as follows :"In our opinion, having regard to modern social conditions and the growth of individual consciousness in marked contrast to the more corporate outlook of an earlier day, the general presumption must be that when one of the members of a joint family insures his life, the amount of the policy belongs to the assured as his separate property and does not become a joint family asset. No doubt, if there is clear indication that the member did not intend to treat it as his separate asset, the position would be different. In a case where each of the several members of the family has taken a policy in his name the presumption becomes stronger that the policies were not part of the joint family assets. The premia must be treated as amounts drawn by the individual members and they must be debited with those amounts."We need not decide whether such a broad proposition should be accepted as being in consonance with the rules of Hindu law, but unfortunately for the appellant, there are clear indications that none of the three brothers intended to treat as a separate asset the income which would have accrued on the maturity or otherwise of the insurance policies. The case thus falls within the exception contemplated by the learned Judges themselves.11. We think that the fact that there were two other policies taken at the same time on the lives of the other brothers, makes no difference. It was suggested that these policies were also purchased by Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha with his private funds out of love and kindness for the two brothers. Unfortunately, the account books show that the payment for all these policies was made from the moneys of the Press, which admittedly was a joint family business, and the income of which belonged to the family as a whole.12. Nothing has been suggested, therefore, which militates against the judgment of the High Court, which, in the circumstances of the case, was correct.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]As regards Appeal No. 331 of 1955, it is sufficient to say that it was not pressed before us, and must, therefore, becontention that there was a partition between thein 1906 was abandoned in this Court, in view of the concurrent findings of the two Courtsheard these arguments, we are satisfied that the concession was properly made, and that there is no scope for inference, either in law or in fact, that the premia paid ceased to be the assets of the joint family and became the share of the income of the individual coparceners.We are also of the opinion that there is no proposition of law by which the insurance policies must be regarded as the separate property of the coparceners on whose lives the insurance is effected by a coparcenary, and that the proceeds of an insurance policy do not belong to the jointour opinion, learned counsel for the appellant in the High Court was justified in conceding that the joint family incurred expenses for purchasing the various policies, and the arguments which have been advanced before us on the basis of the account books have not shown in any way that this concession wasneed not decide whether such a broad proposition should be accepted as being in consonance with the rules of Hindu law, but unfortunately for the appellant, there are clear indications that none of the three brothers intended to treat as a separate asset the income which would have accrued on the maturity or otherwise of the insurance policies. The case thus falls within the exception contemplated by the learned Judges themselves.11. We think that the fact that there were two other policies taken at the same time on the lives of the other brothers, makes no difference. It was suggested that these policies were also purchased by Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha with his private funds out of love and kindness for the two brothers. Unfortunately, the account books show that the payment for all these policies was made from the moneys of the Press, which admittedly was a joint family business, and the income of which belonged to the family as a whole.12. Nothing has been suggested, therefore, which militates against the judgment of the High Court, which, in the circumstances of the case, was correct.