Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
T. V. R. Subbu Chetty s Family Charities, Appellant
Versus
M. Raghava Mudaliar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. Keshva Aiyangar, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. S. K. Aiyangar, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1; Mr. B. K. B. Naidu, Advocate, for Respondent No. 6.
HINDU LAW - ALIENATION BY WIDOW - FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - RATIFICATION - LEGAL NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a reversioner, challenged the validity of an alienation made by the widow of the deceased Mudaliar. The appellant, the successor in title of the transferee, contended that the alienation was valid as it was made pursuant to a family arrangement, which was binding on the respondent, and that the respondent had ratified the alienation by accepting benefits under it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned transaction was not a family arrangement as understood under Hindu Law and that the respondent was not a party to any of the transactions. The court also held that the respondent had not ratified the alienation by accepting benefits under it, as he had done so with the understanding that the arrangement was to last only during the lifetime of the widow.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned transaction was a family arrangement binding on the respondent. 2. Whether the respondent had ratified the alienation by accepting benefits under it. 3. Whether the alienation was justified by legal necessity.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A family arrangement is a transaction entered into by all the members of a family for the purpose of settling their disputes and preserving the family property. In order to be valid, a family arrangement must be fair and equitable to all the parties involved. In the present case, the impugned transaction was not a family arrangement as it was not entered into by all the members of the family and it was not fair and equitable to the respondent. 2. Ratification is the express or implied approval of an act done on one's behalf without prior authorization. In order to constitute ratification, the person ratifying the act must have full knowledge of the facts and must intend to approve the act. In the present case, the respondent did not have full knowledge of the facts and he did not intend to approve the alienation. 3. An alienation by a Hindu widow is valid only if it is justified by legal necessity. Legal necessity includes debts due by the deceased husband, expenses of his funeral and maintenance of the widow and her dependents. In the present case, the alienation was not justified by legal necessity as the debts due by the deceased husband were only a small part of the consideration for the alienation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the High Court, which had set aside the alienation and decreed possession of the property to the respondent.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent M. Raghava Mudaliar who claims to be the reversioner of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar. In his suit the respondent alleges that after the death of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar which took place on March 22, 1893, his property came into the possession of his widow Manickammal. Subsequently the said Manickammal and Rengammal, the widowed mother of the deceased Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar alienated the properties without any legal necessity. According to the respondent the said alienation was not binding on him and so he was entitled to recover possession of the said property free of any encumbrance or charge. Manickammal died on October 18, 1941, whereas Rengammal died in June, 1921. On the death of the widow Manickammal reversion fell open and that has given a cause of action to the respondent for his present suit.
2. Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar died issueless and was survived by his widow, his widowed mother, his sister Andalammal and the respondent and his sister Apurupammal who are the children of Ammakannu Ammal the second sister of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar, and Ethirajammal the daughter of the third sister of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar. To his suit the respondent impleaded the appellant Andalammal, Krishnasami Mudaliar, son of the said Apurupammal (defendant 1) and Susila Bai Ammal daughter of Ethirajammal as defendants 2 to 4. The Udayavar Temple by its sole trustee Bysani Krishnaiah Chetty was joined as defendant 5.
3. After her husband s death Manickammal obtained letters of administration to his estate from the High Court at Madras. It appears that the relations of the widow with her mother-in-law were embittered, and that led to disputes between them. These disputes were settled by the two widows in pursuance of the advice of certain arbitrators who mediated between them. The settlement thus reached was recorded in writing on May 27, 1893, (Ex. D-2). It would be relevant to refer to the main terms of the settlement at this stage. This settlement set out the properties covered by it as Serial Nos. 1 to 5. Item No. 1 which was a house in three blocks was divided between the respondent and his sister Apurupammal who were to take one share; Ethirajammal who was to take another share; and Andalammal who was to take the third share. House No 62, which was Serial No. 2, and houses and shops Nos. 126 and 127 which were shown as Serial No. 3 were agreed to be sold, and it was settled that out of the sale proceeds the debts of the deceased Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar and his father should be discharged; expenses incurred in obtaining the letters of administration should then be deducted along with the expenses of sale, and the balance should be divided equally between the two widows subject to a payment of Rs. 1,000 to the mother-in-law in lieu of her jewels. The two cawnies of lands which were Serial No. 4 were agreed to be given to the maternal uncle of the deceased Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar, whereas the moveables which were shown as Serial No. 5 had to be divided half and half between the two widows. This document contained a clause which provided that "in case any one of us contravenes the terms the other party shall not only cancel this agreement but his title to the estate of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar prior to the agreement shall in no way be affected subject to which this agreement has been entered into. The document thus executed was attested by four attesting witnesses.
4. It appears that soon after this agreement was finalised Krishnasamy Mudaliar, defendant 3, objected to its validity and disputed the right of the widows to deal with the property in the manner specified in it. He was, however, persuaded to abandon his objections and a sale deed was executed by him conveying his reversionary rights to the two widows for consideration on September 10, 1894. By this document defendant 3 purported to recognise and grant an absolute title to the two wi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
