LAWS(SC)-1976-3-18

K V NARAYANAN Vs. K V RANGANANDHAN

Decided On March 12, 1976
K.V.NARAYANAN Appellant
V/S
K.V.RANGANANDHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Madras under 133 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of India against its judgment and decree dated Dec. 8, 1966 in A. S. No. 609 of 1961.

(2.) The facts culminating in this appeal lie in a short compass and may be briefly stated thus:

(3.) Kota Venkatachala Pathy whose legal representatives are the respondents herein and Kota Narayanan, the appellant herein, were real brothers being the sons of one Kota Rangaswami Chettiar. Together with their cousin Subramanyam Chettiar, the son of Kota Kuppuswami Chettiar, the brother of Kota Rangaswami Chettiar, they formed a joint family which was a trading one. Prior to 1927, Subramanyam Chettiar was the manager and karta of the family. After 1927 Kota Venkatachala Pathy took over the management of the family and its properties. By registered deed dated May 29, 1929 (Ext. A-1) a partition of joint family properties was effected between Subramanyam Chettiar on the one hand and Kota Venkatachala Pathy and his brother, Kota Narayanan, who was then a minor, on the other, each branch taking a half share. As karta of the joint family, Subramanyam Chettiar had, before November 20, 1927 incurred debts to the tune of Rs. 9,506/- from several creditors. Five items of joint family properties detailed in Schedule D-1 to the deed of partition were earmarked for the discharge of the aforesaid debts and were given over to Kota Venkatachala Pathy who was made responsible for the discharge of the debts. These debts were discharged by Kota Venkatachala Pathy before March 26, 1934. On September 7, 1956, Kota Venkatachala Pathy brought a suit, being suit No. O.. S. 87 of 1956, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore, North Arcot, for partition and separate possession of 3/4th of the properties set out in Schedule 'A' to the plaint 1/2 of the properties set out in Schedule A-1 to the plaint and whole of the properties set out in Schedule 'B' to the plaint. One of the items namely, item No. 1 of Schedule 'B' to the plaint which consists of four shops is what remains undisposed out of the properties mentioned in Schedule 'D-1' to the deed of partition which were set apart for the purpose of discharging the aforesaid debts incurred by Subramanyam Chettiar before 1927.