P.S. SAIRAM AND ANR. versus P.S. RAMA RAO PISEY AND ORS.

P.S. SAIRAM AND ANR. versus P.S. RAMA RAO PISEY AND ORS.

Properties acquired by Defendant No.1 from the income of business were self-acquisitions, not joint family property, as the joint family had not invested in the business; thus, Defendant No.1 had the right to bequeath such property by Will, which was duly executed. The shares of the parties were determined based on a notional partition as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of the applicability of the Karnataka Amendment, since no appeal was filed on that issue.

Parties
Appellant: P.S. Satram; Appellant: P.S. Sai Ram; Respondent: P.S. Rama Rao Pisey; Respondent: Rekha (Defendant no. l(f)); Respondent: Mala (Defendant no. l(g)); Respondent: Prabha (Defendant no. l(h)); Respondent: Respondent No. 3; Respondent: Respondents Nos. 6-8
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Karnataka High Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; impugned judgments and decrees modified to extent of share allocation.
Legal Topics
Partition, Joint Family Property, Self Acquired Property, Execution of Will, Applicability of Karnataka Amendment to Hindu Succession Act
Hindu Law Succession Law Partition Joint Family Property Self Acquired Property Execution of Will Applicability of Karnataka Amendment to Hindu Succession Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.S. Satram

Appellant

P.S. Sai Ram

Appellant

P.S. Rama Rao Pisey

Respondent

Rekha (Defendant no. l(f))

Respondent

Mala (Defendant no. l(g))

Respondent

Prabha (Defendant no. l(h))

Respondent

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Respondents Nos. 6-8

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Karnataka High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the properties acquired by Defendant No.1 from the income of business are joint family property or self-acquired property
  2. 2 Whether Defendant No.1 had the right to execute the Will bequeathing property at item No.3
  3. 3 Whether due execution of the Will by Defendant No.1 has been proved

Ratio Decidendi

Properties acquired by Defendant No.1 from the income of business were self-acquisitions, not joint family property, as the joint family had not invested in the business; thus, Defendant No.1 had the right to bequeath such property by Will, which was duly executed. The shares of the parties were determined based on a notional partition as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of the applicability of the Karnataka Amendment, since no appeal was filed on that issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; impugned judgments and decrees modified to extent of share allocation.

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to 11/40th share in property at item no.1 and 1/10th share in property at item no.2; not entitled to any share in property at item no.3.
  • No order as to costs.