Back
Supreme Court Of India
A. RAGHAVAMMA
Versus
A. Chenchamma
Decided On : April 9, 1963
Hindu Law - Joint Family - Partition - Adoption - Will - Severance of Status - Communication of Intention - Doctrine of Relation Back - Vested Rights.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Raghavamma, filed a suit for possession of the plaint schedule properties, claiming that she was entitled to the same under the will of her husband, Pitchayya, who had died in 1905. The first respondent, Chenchamma, denied the adoption of Venkayya by Pitchayya and claimed that Chimpirayya and Pitchayya were undivided as alleged by the appellant. The second respondent, Kamalamma, supported the appellant. The third respondent, China Punnayya, denied the allegations in the plaint and disputed the correctness of the extent of some of the items in the plaint schedules.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below found that the appellant had not established the factum of adoption of Venkayya by her husband Pitchayya and that she also failed to prove that Chimpirayya and Pitchayya were divided from each other. The High Court also rejected the appellant's plea that the recitals in the will disclosed a clear and unambiguous declaration of Chimpirayya's intention to divide, holding that the will did not contain any such declaration and that, even if it did, the appellant should have claimed a division of the entire family property, not just the property claimed by Chimpirayya.
Issues: 1. Whether the adoption of Venkayya was true and valid; and 2. Whether Pitchayya and Chimpirayya were divided as alleged by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies upon the person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption and it never shifts. 2. A person who seeks to get a specified extent of land on the ground that it fell to the share of the testator has to prove that the said extent of land fell to his share. 3. A member of a joint Hindu family can bring about his separation in status by a definite and unequivocal declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. 4. A member of a joint Hindu family becomes separated from the other members of the family by a mere declaration of his unequivocal intention to divide from the family without bringing the same to the knowledge of the other member of the family. 5. The knowledge of the members of the family of the manifested intention of one of them to separate from them is a necessary condition for bringing about that members severance from the family. 6. The doctrine of relation back has already been recognized by Hindu Law as developed by Courts and applied in that branch of the law pertaining to adoption. 7. The doctrine of relation back involves retroactivity and, unless a legislative intention is clearly to the contrary, saves vested rights.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Key Points: - The burden of proof for adoption and partition lies on the claimant to establish factum and validity, with analysis of subsequent conduct and documents (!) (!) (!) (!) . - A member can become separated in status by a definite and unequivocal declaration to separate and enjoy share in severalty, but knowledge of that intention by affected members is necessary for severance; the doctrine of relation back may apply with limitations to protect vested rights (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The date of severance may be the manifestation of intention or the date it is brought to the knowledge of affected members, with retroactivity limited to avoid disturbing vested rights; the Will cannot operate on joint-family interest unless severance is established and knowledge exists prior to death (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment
K. SUBBA RAO, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal by certificate is preferred against the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Andhra confirming those of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants for possession of the plaint schedule properties. The following genealogy will be useful in appreciating the facts and the contentions of the parties. IT will be seen from genealogy that Veeranna had two wives and that Chimpirayya and Pitchayya were his sons by the first wife and Peda Punnayya and China Punnayyas were his sons by the second wife. Veeranna died in the year 1906 and his second son Pitchayya had predeceased him on 1-9-1905 leaving his widow Raghavamma. It is alleged that sometime before his death, Pitchayya took Venkayya, the son of his brother Chimprirayya in adoption; and it is also alleged that in or about the year 1895, there was a partition of the joint family properties between Veranna and his four sons, Chimpirayya, Pitchayya, Peda Punnayya and China Punnayya, Veeranna taking only 4 acres of land and the rest of the property being divided between the four sons by metes and bounds. Venkayya died on 24/05/1938, leaving behind a son Subbarao. Chimpirayya died on 5/05/1945 having executed a will dated 14/01/1945 whereunder he gave his properties in equal shares to Subbarao and Kamalamma, daughter of his predeceased daughter Saraswatamma; thereunder he also directed Raghavamma, the widow of his brother Pitchayya, to take possession of the entire property belonging to him, to manage the same, to spend the income therefrom at her discretion and to hand over the property to his two grandchildren after they attained majority and if either or both of them died before attaining majority, his or her share or the entire property, as the case may be would go to Raghavamma. The point to be noticed is that his daughter-in-law, Chenchamma was excluded from management as well as from inheritance after the death of Chimpirayya. But Raghavamma allowed Chenchamma to manage the entire property and she accordingly came into possession of the entire property after the death of Chimpirayya. Subbarao died of 28/07/1949. Raghavamma filed a suit on 12/10/1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, for possession of the plaint scheduled properties; and to that suit, Chenchamma was made the first defendant; Kamalamma the second defendant; and China Punnayya, the second son of Veeramma by his second wife, the third defendant. The plaint consisted of A, B, C, D, D-1 and E Schedules which are alleged to be the properties of Chimpirayya. Raghavamma claimed possession of A B and C Scheduled properties from the 1st defendant, for partition and delivery of half share in the properties covered by plaintschedule D and D-I which are alleged to belong to her and the 3rd defendant in common and a fourth share in the property covered by plaint-schedule E which are alleged to belong to her and the 1st and 3rd defendants in common. As Kamalamma was a minor on the date of the suit, Raghavamma claimed possession of the said properties under the will half in her own right in respect of Subbaraos share, as he died before attaining majority and the other half in the right of Kamalamma, as by then she had not attained majority, she was entitled to manage her share till she attained majority.
( 2 ) THE first defendant denied that Venkayya was given in adoption to Pitchayya or that there was a partition in the family of Veeranna in the manner claimed by the plaintiff. She averred that Chimpirayya died undivided from his grandson Subbarao and, therefore, Subbarao became entitled to all the properties of the joint family by right of survivorship. She did not admit that Chimpirayya executed the Will in a sound and disposing frame of mind. She also did not admit the correctness of the schedules attached to the plaint. The second defendant filed a statement supporting the plaintiff. The third defendant filed a statement denying the
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
