C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs C. A. Murugatha Mudallar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1953 Supreme(SC) 93

B.K.MUKHERJEE, M.C.MAHAJAN, B.JAGANNATHA DAS
C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
C. A. Murugatha Mudallar – Respondent

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

Judgement 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?

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 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document