ANANTHACHARI Vs. KRISHNASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are sons of one Gopala Bhattachariar who died in the year 1931. Gopala who was the son of one Manavala lyengar was born after his father's death which took place in 1888. Three years before he died Manavala adopted Srinivasa Bhattachariar, defendant 1 in the suit out of which this appeal arises. Srinivasa died during the pendency of the suit and he is now represented by the respondent. Srinivasa and Gopala remained joint until 1923 when a partition of the family estate was effected. At this time Gopala had one son, appellant 1, then a boy of five years of age. By the dead of partition which was dated 30 March 1923, the family estate was divided equally between Srinivasa and Gopala, notwithstanding that Srinivasa being an adopted son was only entitled in law to a one-fifth share. No question with regard to the validity of the transaction was raised during Gopala's lifetime, but in the month after his death the suit was launched by the widow as the next friend of the appellants who were then all minors. Appellant 1 has since come of age. The appellants contend that they are entitled to recover from the estate of Srinivasa the difference between the share he received and the one-fifth share allowed by law. The suit was tried by Lakshmana Rao J. who decided that in the circumstances of the case, Gopala was justified in giving a moiety of the estate to Srinivasa on partition. At the time of Manavala's death the estate consisted of about 80 acres of land. He was financially involved and it was necessary to sell a portion of the land to relieve pressure by a creditor. In a good year the income from the lands did not amount to more than Rs. 1,300 and the only other source of income which the family had was a half share in the chinna murai of the Sri Parthasarathy Temple, Madras. The income from this half share of the chinna murai did not amount to more than Rs. 40 per mensem and in all probability to much less; but whatever the exact figure was, it is clear that the joint income was not sufficient to provide for the maintenance of the family, the upkeep of the family properties and the discharge of the family debts.

(2.) On 3 March 1903, the owners of the paria murai gave Srinivasa a power of attorney authorizing him to supervise the selections in the temple to which they were entitled with power to appoint others to assist him in his work. For these services he was to be paid Rs. 10 per mensem. Srinivasa himself took an active part in collecting monetary offerings from worshippers and it is common ground that he was entitled to retain a percentage of the amounts actually collected by him. His earnings in this respect are said to have amounted to about Rs. 40 per mensem, in addition to the Rs. 10 mentioned in the power of attorney.

(3.) But it is a legitimate inference from the proved facts in this case that his personal income was not limited to this Rs. 50 per mensem and he must have received much more by way of gifts from wealthy people interested the temple. Srinivasa held this power of attorney for 20 years and it is very significant that 12 months after he obtained it, borrowings on behalf of the family ceased. The significance does not stop there. During the period for which Srinivasa held this power of attorney, the family debts were all paid off, improvements were made to the ancestral house, a second house was built and three small plots of land were purchased. This could only have been done out of moneys which Srinivasa acquired as the result of the position which he held as the agent of the owners of the peria murai, and this is in effect acknowledged in the deed of partition itself. It cannot be gainsaid that the family income alone was insufficient to do all this and Gopala who was a minor up to 1906 had no separate income of his own, apart from what he earned as a gumastha under Srinivasa, which could not have amounted to much. The position, therefore, was that Gopala had to thank Srinivasa for removing the oppression of debt and reviving the prosperity of the family. In these circumstances it is not surprising, when it was decided to put an end to the joint family status and partition the family estate, that Gopala agreed to Srinivasa having a half share instead of one fifth. The recitals in the deed of partition show that Gopala realized how much he owed to Srinivasa. These recitals read as follows: Whereas both of us were living hitherto in one joint family, and whereas, in view of certain inconveniences it is now deemed fit to effect a partition and live separately, and whereas the moveable and immovable properties belonging to us in common and mentioned hereunder belonging to us both as our ancestral property and self- acquired property, which are in our possession and enjoyment are most of them acquired and improved to a great extent by Srinivasa lyengar alone, the adopted son amongst us, under the patronage of great men?.