TIRUVENKATA CHARIAR Vs. ANDALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Do earnings from "Sishya Sancharam" constitute joint family property? Is the occupation of ''Sishya Sancharam" heritable and partible?. Is it a justiciable right? These are the important questions that fall for determination in this case. I think they merit consideration by a Division Bench. Post this appeal before a Bench. (Then the case came before Basi Reddy & Sharfuddin Ahmed, J ] Order (Order of the Bench delivered by Basi Reddy, J.) Under Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules we refer the following questions of law for determination by a Full Bench:

(2.) When this appeal came up before Basi Reddy, J, he referred the matter to a Bench, as an important question relating to Sishya Sancharam fell for consideration. The Bench, consisting of himself and Sharfuddin Ahmed J., having regard to its importance, referred the following two questions to a Full Bench, namely, 1. Is the avocation of Sishya Sancharam an office or property and is it heritable and partible? Is it a justiciable right? 2. Do earnings from Shhya Sancharam constitute joint family property? At the very outset it appeared to us, and the learned advocates for the appellants and the rrspondent agreed, that as the several aspects of the matter which fall for consideration drpcnd on evidence relating to the custom and usage in regard to Sishya Sancharam, the whole case will have to be heard, and we accordingly permitted the learned advocates to argue the entire appeal, The respondent, who is the widow of one late Butchayyavarlu, son of the 1st defendant, Tiruvenkatachariar, filed the suit against her father-in law, his son and his son's son, who are respectively appellants 1, 2 and 3 herein, for partition of the joint family immoveable properties in the plaint A schedule, the utensils etc., in B-schedule and the amount from moneylending business specified in C-schedule, on the allegation that the members of the joint family who are religious Gurus of Vaishnavities, has the hereditary occupation of Sishya Sancharam, from which they obtain or acquire cash, silverware, jewels and other valuables from Sishyas according to their status in token of having received Upadesam from the Guru which will be done after Samarayanam, when Chakrankitas (i c., wheel and conch) are impressed on the Shoulders of the Sishyas. This income as and when it is received, according to the plaintiff, is used for the benefit of the members of the family and is joint family property. The 1st defendant and the plaintiff's husband it is stated, used- to go on Sishya Sancharam The plaintiff also, after the marriage, used to accompany them. The 2nd defendant-appellant is a violin artist in the All India Radio, Vijayawada. The plaintiff averred that she was also given some Guru Daksihina by the Sishyas and that the annual income of the family from Sishya Sancharam was. about Rs.5000/-, and it was with these amounts, that item I of the plaint A schedule, viz , a house at Vijayawada, the market value of which is Rs. 15,000/- was purchased. Item 2 of A schedule which is a Kottu the market value of which is Rs.6000/- was given by a Sishya. The 1st defendant was also sending articles and moneys received on Sishya Sancharam to Vijayawada and when they were accumulated to a large extent, he was lending moneys to his brother-in-law, Keshavachryulu of Poduru village in West Godavan District, for being invested in some moneylending business Apart from this, the joint family also has moneylending business. All these properties have been shown in schedules A to C. In or about October, 1954, the plaintiff's husband suffered from typhoid fever and died on 27-10-1954 a Vijayawada while living jointly with the 1st defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff gave birth to a posthumous child on 29-5-1955, who however died on 17-5-1956. Apart from her being entitled to claim a share in the properties not only as the heir of her husband, but also of her son, she is also entitled to her Sarisamans, a pair of litk clothes, two silver vessels and a gold ring which were left in the 1st defendant's house, but she stated that she would file a separate suit for recovery of the same.

(3.) The 1st defendant denied that the joint family has any hereditary occupation of Sishya Samcharam or that the income derived from in constitutes joint family property of that it is heriiable property. According to him, the Sishya Sancharam which he was undertaking, was not in the capacity of father-manager of a Hindu joint family; nor is it true to say that he was getting an income of Rs.5000/- by it. He also denied that he was doing any moneylending business: According to him, his father and grandfather had disciplies of their own and they had property, which was given away by his father to him and his brothers. Subsequently, he and his brother became divided. He had only 2 acres of land and a small Sishya Sancharam. The income of the land was only Rs.25 per year. The 1st; defendant underwent training and obtained proficiency in Sastras, Agamas and religious affairs, and is respected not only by Sri-Vaishnava community but also by general public. It was due to his learning and proficiency in religious matters that many people became his Sishyas and he was honoured by them with presents like silverware, clothes and Guru Dakshin, which was his separate self-acquired property. He also stated that the 2nd defendant is living on his own earnings as a violinist, which is his self-acquisition, [t was averred that before his first son, viz , the plaintiff's husband died, the 1st defendant had effected division in status between himself and his two sons, and as there was no joint property, either movable or immovable, he gave his self-earned silverware, copper vessels and clothes to his two sons. In so far as the house is concerned though it was purchased before the partition, it was with his own funds, of which Rs.1000/- were contributed by a Sishya, and the balance by sale of his wife's jewellery, and borrowings from the 2nd defendant's wife and others, and hence it is his separate property in which his sons have no interest. The house at Nellore also is his separate property as it belongs to him and his brothers. He sold the 2 acres of land for meeting the family expenses.