SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Gummanna Shetty and others, Appellants
Versus
Nagaveniamma Respondent.
Civil Appeal No 910 of 1964,
D/- 4-5-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon, Senior Advocate, (M/s. M. Veerappa, Sreedharan Nambiar, D. P. Singh and H. K. Puri, Advocates with him), for Appellants, Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate. (M/s. R. Thiagarajan, R. Ganapathy Iyer. Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
ALIYASANTHANA LAW - Partition - Deed of family arrangement - Construction - Whether effected an out-right partition or division for convenience of enjoyment and maintenance only - Madras Aliyasanthana Act (1 of 1949), S. 36 (6).
Fact of the Case:
A joint family governed by the Aliyasanthana Law of inheritance executed a deed in 1900 dividing the family properties into two branches. The deed provided for separate enjoyment of the properties by each branch, separate mutations and pastas, separate payment of assessments, and separate managers. However, it also contained restrictions on alienation and a provision that if one branch became extinct, its properties would pass to the other branch.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the deed did not effect an out-right partition of the joint family. The Court considered the object of the deed, the restrictions on alienation, and the provision for survivorship in case of extinction of one branch as indicative of an intention to create a division for convenience of enjoyment only.
Issues: Whether the deed dated September 4, 1900, effected a disruption of the joint family or whether it made a division for convenience of enjoyment and maintenance only.
Ratio Decidendi: The character of the deed must be judged in the background of the Aliyasanthana law of inheritance, under which a joint family could be divided by a family arrangement without disrupting the community of interest in the family properties. The deed in question contained features indicative of both an out-right partition and a division for convenience of enjoyment. However, the restrictions on alienation and the provision for survivorship indicated that the parties did not intend to effect an out-right partition.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and restored the decree of the trial court.
Judgment
BACHAWAT, J. : By a registered deed dated September 4. 1900, a group of 19 persons forming a joint family with community of property governed by the Aliyasathana Law of inheritance, formed themselves into two branches and divided the family properties. The second branch consisted of the descendants of Sarasamma and Brahmi and some descendants of Nemakka -in all 10 persons. The first branch consisted of Nemakka and the rest of her descendants and her sister Sivadevi - in all 9 persons. In 1953 Darnamma was the sole surviving member of the second branch. She was a nissanthathi kavaru 70 years old having no descendants. In 1955, the members of the first branch instituted a Suit against Darnamma for partition of all the properties comprised in the deed dated September 4, 1900, alleging that the deed effected a division for convenience of enjoyment and maintenance only and was not an absolute out-right partition. The defence of Darnamma was that the deed effected an out-right partition. The trial court accepted the plaintiff s contention and passed a preliminary decree 1or partition. Darnamma filed an appeal in the Mysore High Court. During the pendency of the appeal she died and one Nagaveniamma claiming under her wil1 was substituted in her place as her legal representative. The High Court held that the deed dated September 4, 1900, effected an out-right partition. On this finding the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. From this decree the present appeal has been filed under a Certificate granted by the High Court.
2. The joint family properties were formerly managed by its yajaman one Manjappa. Upon his death, the parties to the deed dated September 4, 1900, apprehended disputes. The object of the deed was to prevent such disputes, and consequential wastage of property and to preserve the dignity of the family. The family properties were divided into two parts, and a portion was allotted to each branch. The deed provided that the properties allotted to the first branch would be enjoyed by its members and would be mutated in Nemakka s name, and Siddappa, a member of this branch would manage the properties, pay the tirve and cesses, and conduct the maintenance of its members. The properties allotted to the second branch would be enjoyed by its members and would be mutated in the name of Nagu, a member of that branch, and Chandayia, another member of the branch, would manage the properties pay the trive and cesses, and conduct the maintenance of its members. Party of items 2 and 5 of the properties were allotted to the two branches, but the entire tirve and cesses for the two items would be paid by the first branch and the arrears of the tirve, if any, would form a charge on the properties allotted to the first branch. The deed provided that
"as regards the properties enjoyed as mentioned above by the members of the said branch and the descendants that shall be born to them in future should enjoy the same and as regards the properties enjoyed by the members of the second branch, the members of the said branch and the descendants that shall be born to them in future should enjoy the same and in this manner, they should enjoy the properties separately. * * * Further after the lifetime of the member of the respective branches who obtains the kudathale of the properties allotted to the respective branches, the kudathale should be got entered successively in the name of the senior-most male or female member of the respective branches."
The common debt of the family was apportioned between the two branches, and branches, and each branch would discharge its share of the debt and interest thereon as quickly as possible. If the manager of any branch allowed the interest to fall in arrears, the members of the branch would appoint another manager in his place. Each branch would have the power to execute documents creating a security over the properties allotted to it for
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.