K. Badrinarayana vs Kasula Lakshmidevamma

Bhaskar Rao, J.—The first defendant in the suit is the petitioner herein. This revision is filed by him against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur allowing LA. No. 536 of 1991 filed for addition of certain property in the suit for partition.

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a suit for partitioning the suit schedule properties. Written statements were filed by the petitioner herein and other defendants. Subsequently, I.A. No. 536 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff contending that the wife of the first defendant purchased certain property out of the funds of the joint family and that therefore, the same property should be included in the suit schedule property for the purpose of partition. Therefore it should be added to their joint family property in the suit. The defendant filed the counter stating that the property is purchased by his wife and not from out of the joint family property funds. The Lower Court allowed the application on payment of costs. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed this C.R.P. in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife of the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings i.e. to the suit. If the Kartha of the joint family is in possession of the properties, he is accountable for the accounts and if he purchases any property, the same can be treated as joint family properties. He relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in M.N. Aryamurthy and Another Vs. M.D. Subbaraya Setty (Dead) through L. R. and Others, . But the facts of the said decision are quite different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Even if the defendant No. 1. Petitioner purchases property, the same is liable for accounting. But the said property cannot be treated as joint family property.

The important question of law that arises in this case is whether the property purchased by the Kartha of the joint family after the suit for partition is filed in the name of his wife is deemed to be the joint family property or not.

In this case, the property was purchased in the name of the wife admittedly after the suit was filed. The properties which are purchase or existing on the date of suit are deemed to be joint family properties. If the Kartha of the joint family purchases any properties after the suit for partition is filed in his wife''s name or children''s name, the same cannot be said to be joint family property. But the Kartha is liable to account for income of the joint family properties from the date of the suit. Even if the property is purchased, after the suit is filed by the Kartha in his name or in the name of his wife or children, the same cannot be held as joint family property and cannot be included in it. But, however, the Kartha is liable to account for the entire income of the joint family properties existing on the date of the suit. Therefore, the order under revision is set aside and the C.R.P. is allowed accordingly. No costs.