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

1. These two appeals have been filed by the same appellant (Smt. Prabati Kaur) with certificates granted by the High Court of Patna under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution read with Ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By these two appeals, the appellant impugns the common judgment but separate decrees of the High Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 69 and 91 of 1947 dated September 9, 1953.2. The facts are as follows : One Ramdin Sinha had three sons, Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha, Sarangdhar Sinha and Ramji Sinha. The last two were theof Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha. Ramdin Sinha died in 1903, as it is now admitted, in a state of jointness with his three sons, and the coparcenary also continued till the death of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha on October 27, 1936. Ramdin Sinha had started a printing and publishing business in Patna known as Khadga Vilas Press, hereinafter referred to as the Press, and left also vast movable and immovable properties in Patna and Ballia District. Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha had three daughters, one by his third wife and two by his fourth wife. These daughters were defendants along with the present appellant in the Court of First Instance. Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha died on October 27, 1936, leaving extensive properties.3. Included in the property were stocks, shares and securities and three life insurance policies with the Great Eastern Life Assurance Co. Ltd., which was the fifth defendant in the suit. After the death of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha, the widow, Parbati Kaur, applied to the District Court for a succession certificate, and obtained an order in her favour. We were informed that she could not act on the order granting the certificate to her, because she could not furnish security. The present suit was filed by the twoof Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha for a declaration that they were entitled to the monies due under the insurance policies and the shares, stocks and securities together with interest and other benefits, as the surviving coparceners. This suit was opposed on various grounds by the answering defendants, and the trial Judge held that the stocks, shares and securities belonged to the coparcenary, but that the insurance policies were the private property of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha and the widow was entitled to succeed to them. Against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Patna, two appeals were filed by the opposing parties. The High Court by its judgment under appeal, decide the entire suit in favour of the plaintiffs, and held that the insurance policies also formed the assets of the coparcenary, to which the plaintiffs were entitled as survivors. The appellant, therefore, obtained two certificates from the High Court, and filed these two appeals

Court's reasoning:
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.