Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1953 Supreme(SC) 93

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th October, 1953
MAHAJAN, B.K. MUKHERJEA AND JAGANNADHA DAS, JJ.
C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar Appellant
Versus
C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 191 of 1952.
Advocates appeared
Shri P. Somasundaram, Senior Advocate; (Shri R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate with him), instructed by Shri S. Subramanian, Agent, for Appellant; Shri B. Somayya, Senior Advocate, (Shri K. R. Chaudhury, Advocate, with him). instructed by Shri M. S. K. Aiyangar, Agent: for Respondent No. 1. @page-SC497

Advocates:
B.SOMALAYA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, M.S.K.AIYANGAR, P.SOMASUNDRAM, R.Ganapathy Iyer, S.SIVA SUBRAMANIAM

A Mitakshara father has complete powers of disposition over his self-acquired property, and he can provide expressly, when he makes a gift, either that the donee would take it exclusively for himself or that the gift would be for the benefit of his branch of the family.

Headnote:
HINDU LAW - MITAKSHARA - FATHER'S GIFT TO SON - WHETHER ANCESTRAL OR SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY IN SON'S HANDS - CONSTRUCTION OF WILL - INTENTION OF TESTATOR.
Fact of the Case:

The suit was commenced by the plaintiff, who is respondent 1 in this appeal for specific allotment, on partition, of his one-third share in the properties described in the plaint, on the allegation that they were the joint properties of a family consisting of himself, his father, defendant 1, and his brother, defendant 2 and that he was entitled in law to one-third share in the same. The properties in respect of which the plaintiff claims partition are described in Sch. B to the plaint. They consist of four items of agricultural land measuring a little over 5 acres in the aggregate, one residential house in the town of Erode and certain jewellery, furniture and brass utensils.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the properties bequeathed by the father to defendant 1 should be held to be ancestral properties in his hands and as the other properties were acquired by defendant 1 out of the income of the ancestral estate, they also became impressed with the character of joint property.
Issues: Whether the properties that defendant 1 got under the will of his father are to be regarded as ancestral or self-acquired properties in his hands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a Mitakshara father has complete powers of disposition over his self-acquired property, and that he can provide expressly, when he makes a gift, either that the donee would take it exclusively for himself or that the gift would be for the benefit of his branch of the family. The court further held that the intention of the testator was to make suitable provisions for those of his near relations whom he considered to have claims upon his affection and bounty, and that he did not want to simply make a division of his property amongst the heirs in the same way as they themselves would have done after his death, with a view to avoid disputes in the future.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgments and decrees of both the courts below were set aside and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

How to determine whether gifts made by a Mitakshara father of self-acquired property to a son are to be treated as ancestral property in the hands of the donee or as self-acquired property?

Question 2?

What is the effect of a father's gift or testamentary bequest on the partition rights of the sons and their issue under Mitakshara law?

Question 3?

What factors determine the intended nature of interest (exclusive for the son vs. part of a partition) in property gifted by the father to a son, and how should the court interpret the donor's intention from the grant document and surrounding circumstances?

Judgement

B. K. MUKHERJEA J. : This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, dated 13-12-1949, affirming, with slight modification, those of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, passed in O. S. 138 of 1945.

2. The suit was commenced by the plaintiff, who is respondent 1 in this appeal for specific allotment, on partition, of his one-third share in the properties described in the plaint, on the allegation that they were the joint properties of a family consisting of himself, his father, defendant 1, and his brother, defendant 2 and that he was entitled in law to one-third share in the same. It appears that the plaintiff and defendant 2, who are two brothers, are both sons of defendant 1 by his first wife who predeceased her husband. After the death of plaintiff s mother, the defendant 1 married again and his second wife is defendant 3 in the suit.

The allegations in the plaint, in substance, are that after the step-mother came into the house. the relation between the father & his sons became strained and as the father began to assert an exclusive title to the joint family property, denying any rights of his sons thereto, the present suit had to be brought. The properties in respect of which the plaintiff claims partition are described in Sch. B to the plaint. They consist of four items of agricultural land measuring a little over 5 acres in the aggregate, one residential house in the town of Erode and certain jewellery, furniture and brass utensils. In addition to these, it is averred in para. 11 of the plaint that there is a sum of about Rs. 15,000/- deposited in the name of the first defendant in the Erode Urban Bank Limited; that money also belongs to the joint family and the plaintiff is entitled to his share therein.

3. Defendant 1 in his written statement traversed all these allegations of the plaintiff and denied that there was any joint family property to which the plaintiff could lay a claim. His case was that items 1 and 2 of Sch. B lands as well as the house property were the self-acquired properties of his father and he got them under a will executed by the latter as early as in the year 1912. The other items of immovable property as well as the cash, furniture and utensils were his own acquisitions in which the sons had no interest whatsoever. As regards the jewels mentioned in the plaint, it was said that only a few of them existed and they belonged exclusively to his wife, defendant 3.

4. Defendant 2, who is the brother of the plaintiff, supported the plaintiff s case in its entirely. Defendant 3 in her written statement asserted that she was not a necessary party to the suit and that whatever jewellery there were belonged exclusively to her.

5. After hearing the case the trial judge came to the conclusion that the properties bequeathed to defendant. 1 by his father should be held to be ancestral properties in his hands and as the other properties were acquired by defendant 1 out of the income of the ancestral estate, they also became impressed with the character of joint property. The result was that the subordinate Judge made a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and allowed his claim as laid in the plaint with the exception of certain articles of jewellery which were held to be non-existent-

6. Against the decision, the defendant 1 took an appeal to the High Court of Madras. The High Court dismissed the appeal with this variation that the jewels such of them as existed-were held to belong to defendant 3 alone and the plaintiff s claim for partition of the furniture and brass utensils was dismissed. The High Court rejected defendant 1 s application for leave to appeal to this Court but he succeeded in getting special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

7. The substantial point that requires consideration in the appeal is, whether the properties that defendant 1 got under the will of his father are to be regar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document