Pulavarthi Lakshmanaswami vs Pulavarthi Sitaramamurthi and Others

Viswanatha Sastri, J.—Plaintiff 2 is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the settlement of accounts

specified in Schedules A to E of the plaint and for a decree for such amount as may be found due to the plaintiffs. There was a preliminary decree

in pursuance of which a Commissioner was appointed to go into the accounts and submit his report. He made an interim report on 30th April 1942

recording his conclusions on some of the points in dispute and asking for directions regarding the question of interest claimed by the plaintiffs. A

general direction was given by the trial Court regarding interest by an order dated 15th September 1942 and the Commissioner was asked to

submit a final report. An auditor was appointed and he submitted a final report on 21st December 1942, Objections were filed by both the parties

and the Courts below have dealt with those objections.

It is clear that defendants 1 and 2 are liable to account to the plaintiffs and the only question is as regards their liability to pay interest. When

interest is realised by a member of the family in possession of family funds, it is to be considered as an accretion to the family by way of income

and a share therein must be given to the member suing for partition. If the plaintiffs succeed in showing that defendants 1 and 2 had realised any

income from the moneys that came into their hands, they can have a claim for interest just as in any other part of the family income. As between

coparceners, the fact that the family is engaged in trade does not convert their relationship and the trade into a partnership. If the family becomes

severed, the family trade is held by the manager who has in respect of it the same duties to perform as in respect of any other item of coparcenary

property. After the disruption, the powers of the manager are not those of a surviving partner but of a co-owner or a tenant in common in

management. The principles of partnership law cannot be applied in their entirety to the partition of a joint family business as such and the

settlement of the accounts of such business. In the case of co-owners, the mere fact that one of them realises the common asset or outstanding

does not involve a liability on his part to pay interest upon the amounts realised to the other co-owners. The appellate Court has applied these

principles to the facts of this case quite correctly and I have not been shown where the appellate Court has erred in its conclusion.

For these reasons, both the second appeal as well as the memorandum of cross-objections are dismissed with costs.