Case: P. N. Easwara Iyer Vs. P. N. Venkatasubramania Iyer and Others

determined and properties had been allotted according to the respective shares, the property at items Nos. 210 to 282 were set apart separately and entrusted to the possession of the first defendant for the purpose mentioned above. It is important to note that the deed does not mention that the ownership of the properties was transferred to the first defendant. They were coparcenary properties entrusted as such to the first defendant. The plaintiff, who did not consider that the partition set up in 1940 by the first defendant between him and his sons was binding on them, filed a suit (No. 1 of 1940) against the first defendant for recovery of his share of the money owed to him by the larger family. The suit was decreed on July 30, 1933 and it appears that the decree was satisfied from other funds. It seems to us clear that the properties at items Nos. 210 to 282, which were originally in the nature of coparcenary property, remained coparcenary property in the hands of the first defendant and were liable to partition between him and his sons. It was strenuously urged that the properties had been given by the larger family to the first defendant subject to the obligation that he should personally discharge the debts owed by the larger family to his sons and, therefore, it is said, the properties must be regarded as his personal property. The contention is not supported by the partition deed of 1939, nor by any other material before us. Reliance was also placed by the defendants on K. V. Narayanan v. K. V. Ranganandhan ((1976) 3 SCR 637 : (1977) 1 SCC 244 ), but we do not see how that case can assist the defendants. That was a case where on a partition between the two branches of the family certain properties were given to a member of one branch for discharging some family debts. The debts were discharged by him and subsequently on a suit for partition of his branch filed by him, he claimed that one of the items earmarked for the discharge of the debts and which had remained undisposed of, was his exclusive property as it was given to him absolutely. This court held that the properties had been given to him on the partition of 1929 as separate property and were not liable to partition. The deed under which the properties were entrusted to him showed that the sole responsibility for discharge of the debts had been placed on him, and his liability to discharge the debts was not confined to the extent of the properties but was irrespective of the sufficiency or otherwise of the properties, and any deficit or surplus had to be met or enjoyed by him exclusively. It was also apparent that the other branch which had separated in 1929 was no longer liable for the debts. The court found that the properties were given to the family member in view of his personal undertaking to discharge the debts. It is apparent at once that the facts of the case are distinguishable. In the instant case, the properties were coparcenary properties and continued as such throughout. They were given into the possession and not into the ownership of the first defendant. As they were not employed by him for the purpose for which they had been given, they remained available for partition between him and his sons. Accordingly, we hold that the "Karulai" estate, represented by the properties at items 210 to 282 must be regarded as coparcenary property liable to partition.19. In regard to the property "Venkata Vilas" at item 336, the record shows that it was purchased on September 19, 1920 for Rs. 50, 000 and that the purchase price proceeded from the coparcenary funds. The evidence has been carefully considered by the appellate court and it has found that the first defendant could not possibly have had sufficient personal funds in order to acquire the property. Indeed, the evidence discloses that a sum of Rs. 49, 000 was drawn by cheque on August 4, 1920 from the family account. We are in agreement with the appellate court that the property, "Venkata Vilas", constitutes coparcenary property available for partition between the members of the family.20. Towards the end it was urged on behalf of the defendants that even if the properties covered by the two settlements are regarded as coparcenary properties, the settlements were made when the family stood divided in status and therefore they should be regarded as valid at least to the extent of the share of first defendant. There appears to be no objection by any party to this suggestion being accepted, except that it pointed out by the plaintiff that the eighteenth defendant, representing the estate of her deceased husband, the fourth defendant, has filed no appeal in this Court against the decree of the appellate Court so far as declared invalid the settlement of November 30, 1949. It seems to us desirable on considerations of equal justice and in order to maintain consistency in these cases that we should make no exception in regard to the claim of the eighteenth defendant, and she should be entitled to the same interest in the one-fifth share of the first defendant in "Venkata Vilas" as the second defendant would have. In the circumstances, we hold that the settlement dated June 21, 1949 shall be treated as settling the one-fifth share of the first defendant in the properties mentioned therein on the second defendant, and the settlement dated November 30, 1949, which was intended in favour of the second and fourth defendants, shall be regarded as valid in favour of the second defendant and the eighteenth defendant, representing the estate of the fourth defendant, to the extent of one-half each of the one-fifth share of the first defendant in the property mentioned therein. The rest of the shares in all the properties shall be worked out in the light of this judgment.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]It seems to us desirable on considerations of equal justice and in order to maintain consistency in these cases that we should make no exception in regard to the claim of the eighteenth defendant, and she should be entitled to the same interest in theshare of the first defendant in "Venkata Vilas" as the second defendant would have. In the circumstances, we hold that the settlement dated June 21, 1949 shall be treated as settling theshare of the first defendant in the properties mentioned therein on the second defendant, and the settlement dated November 30, 1949, which was intended in favour of the second and fourth defendants, shall be regarded as valid in favour of the second defendant and the eighteenth defendant, representing the estate of the fourth defendant, to the extent ofeach of theshare of the first defendant in the property mentioned therein. The rest of the shares in all the properties shall be worked out in the light of this judgment.The property at item 341 has been claimed by the fourth defendant as hisThe sale deed dated March 27, 1944 shows that a portion of land measuring about 29 grounds and 1777 sq. ft. was acquired by the fourth defendant. The property was purchased at a public auction by him and the appellate court has found that he paid Rs. 3, 000 on the acceptance of his bid and thereafter the balance of Rs. 9, 000 and that the property must be regarded as hisThere is abundant evidence before us to support that finding. It must be remembered that when the property was acquired in 1944, the fourth defendant was a divided member of the family. Further, even if the first defendant made a gift of money to the fourth defendant and the property was acquired from that money, the property must continue to be regarded as the separate property of the fourth defendant. It was never acquired by him for the family, and all that can be said is that the first defendant is liable to account for the money so gifted. Agreeing with the appellate court, we are of the opinion that this property is theof the fourthsee no case either for disturbing the finding of the appellate court that the jewellery claimed was not proved to belong to the coparcenary. The direction of the appellate court that the claim of the second defendant on account of improvements made by him should be determined by the court of the first instance was also assailed, but it has not been established that the direction is not justified and we should interfere with it.18. We now turn to the two settlements of property made by the first defendant on the second defendant, his sons and the fourth defendant. The properties at items Nos. 210 to 282 were settled on the second defendant and his sons by the first defendant under a deed of settlement dated June 21, 1949. It was recited in the deed that at the partition of the family the property had been allotted to the share of the settlers branch consisting of himself and his sons and that at the partition effected thereafter between him and his sons in 1940, the property had fallen to the share of the settlor. The second settlement was made by the first defendant on the second and fourth defendants by a deed dated November 30, 1949 and it related to the property described as "Venkata Vilas" mentioned at item No. 336. This was also described in the deed by the first defendant as his separate property. The appellate court has found that the two sets of property constitute coparcenary property and could not be described as separate property of the first defendant. As regards the properties at items Nos. 210 to 282, they were given by the larger family to the possession of the first defendant for the purpose of discharging debts owed by the larger family to the sons of the first defendant. The partition deed dated September 9, 1939 discloses that after the shares of the different branches of the larger family had been determined and properties had been allotted according to the respective shares, the property at items Nos. 210 to 282 were set apart separately and entrusted to the possession of the first defendant for the purpose mentioned above. It is important to note that the deed does not mention that the ownership of the properties was transferred to the first defendant. They were coparcenary properties entrusted as such to the first defendant. The plaintiff, who did not consider that the partition set up in 1940 by the first defendant between him and his sons was binding on them, filed a suit (No. 1 of 1940) against the first defendant for recovery of his share of the money owed to him by the larger family. The suit was decreed on July 30, 1933 and it appears that the decree was satisfied from other funds. It seems to us clear that the properties at items Nos. 210 to 282, which were originally in the nature of coparcenary property, remained coparcenary property in the hands of the first defendant and were liable to partition between him and his sons. It was strenuously urged that the properties had been given by the larger family to the first defendant subject to the obligation that he should personally discharge the debts owed by the larger family to his sons and, therefore, it is said, the properties must be regarded as his personal property. The contention is not supported by the partition deed of 1939, nor by any other material before us. Reliance was also placed by the defendants on K. V. Narayanan v. K. V. Ranganandhan ((1976) 3 SCR 637   : (1977) 1 SCC 244  ), but we do not see how that case can assist the defendants. That was a case where on a partition between the two branches of the family certain properties were given to a member of one branch for discharging some family debts. The debts were discharged by him and subsequently on a suit for partition of his branch filed by him, he claimed that one of the items earmarked for the discharge of the debts and which had remained undisposed of, was his exclusive property as it was given to him absolutely. This court held that the properties had been given to him on the partition of 1929 as separate property and were not liable to partition. The deed under which the properties were entrusted to him showed that the sole responsibility for discharge of the debts had been placed on him, and his liability to discharge the debts was not confined to the extent of the properties but was irrespective of the sufficiency or otherwise of the properties, and any deficit or surplus had to be met or enjoyed by him exclusively. It was also apparent that the other branch which had separated in 1929 was no longer liable for the debts. The court found that the properties were given to the family member in view of his personal undertaking to discharge the debts. It is apparent at once that the facts of the case are distinguishable. In the instant case, the properties were coparcenary properties and continued as such throughout. They were given into the possession and not into the ownership of the first defendant. As they were not employed by him for the purpose for which they had been given, they remained available for partition between him and his sons. Accordingly, we hold that the "Karulai" estate, represented by the properties at items 210 to 282 must be regarded as coparcenary property liable to partition.