Back
1921 Supreme(SC) 38
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD SHAW, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
ARUMILLI PERRAZU - Appellant
Versus
ARUMILLI SUBBARAYADU - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court of Madras.
Decided On : May. 5. 1921.
Solicitor for appellants :Edward Dalgado. Solicitor for respondents 1, 2, 3: Douglas Grant.
In a Sudra family governed by Mitakshara, an adopted son shares the joint family property equally with any legitimate sons born after the adoption, as established by the authority of the Dattaka Chandrika.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Mitakshara and Dattaka Chandrika - Rights of an adopted son in a Sudra family - In the case of Sudras, an adopted son shares in the family property equally with after-born natural sons. This rule, found in the Dattaka Chandrika, s. 5, §§ 29 and 32, excludes Sudras from the general rule applicable to twice-born castes where an adopted son receives a reduced share upon the birth of a natural son. The Dattaka Chandrika is recognized as a high authority on adoption in the region, and this specific rule has been long accepted and acted upon as part of the general law. (Paras 11, 24, 25, 33)
(B) Joint Family Estate - Liability of Manager - In the absence of proof of direct misappropriation or fraudulent and improper conversion of moneys for personal use, the manager of a joint family estate is liable to account for what he actually received and not for what he might have received if the moneys had been profitably dealt with. The fiduciary relationship of a joint family manager differs from the strict rules applicable to trustees and cestuis que trust in English law. (Para 18)
(C) Interest and Accounts - The determination of the rate of interest on misapplied funds rests upon the discretion of the court. A claim for a general account may be refused if the specific items of misconduct have already been investigated and adjudicated, as ordering a further account would be a needless prolongation of litigation. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
A suit for partition was brought by the manager of a joint Hindu family (Sudras governed by Mitakshara) and his two sons against other family members, including an adopted son. The adopted son had been adopted by the manager before the manager's natural sons were born. The dispute centered on whether the adopted son was entitled to a share equal to that of the after-born natural sons. Additionally, the parties disputed the management of the joint family property, seeking a general account and interest on misapplied funds.
Findings of Court:
The court found that among Sudras, the adopted son is entitled to share equally with the subsequently born legitimate sons. Regarding the estate management, the court upheld the refusal of a general account and the 6% interest rate, ruling that the manager is only liable for actual receipts unless fraud or misappropriation is proven.
Issues: 1. Whether in a Sudra family, an adopted son shares equally with a natural son born after the adoption. 2. Whether the manager of a joint family estate is liable for potential profits or only actual receipts. 3. Whether a general account should be ordered when specific items of misconduct have already been adjudicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Dattaka Chandrika is a high authority on adoption and its rule that Sudras' adopted sons share equally with after-born natural sons has been accepted and acted upon for over a century in the region. This rule is not inconsistent with the Smritis or the Mitakshara. Furthermore, the manager of a joint family estate does not owe the same strict duties as a trustee under English law; liability is limited to actual receipts unless misappropriation is established.
Result: First appeal dismissed (except for interest on a specific sum); second appeal allowed, restoring the decree that the adopted son shares equally.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu law
-
adoption
- rights of adopted sons
-
joint family
- partition
- manager's liability
-
adoption
-
hindu law
-
practice and procedure
-
accounts
- fiduciary duty
-
accounts
Judgement
Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 18 and 19 of 1919) from a judgment and decree of the High Court, varying a decree (December 13, 1913) of the temporary Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry.
The two consolidated appeals arose out of a suit for partition brought by Subbarayadu and his two sons (respondents in both appeals) against, among other defendants, the four sons of Subbarayadus deceased brother, Venkiah. The parties were members of a joint Hindu family resident in the Madras Presidency, Subbarayadu being the manager, and were Sudras governed by the Mitakshara. It was found at the trial, and conceded upon appeal, that Subbarayadu had adopted Ramanna, the fourth son of Venkiah, before the plaintiffs (his aurasa sons) were born. The defendant Ramanna by his written statement claimed that as an adopted son he was entitled to share equally with Subbarayadus after-born aurasa sons. Ramannas brothers, and other defendants, by their written statements raised various questions with regard to the joint family property alleging acts of misfeasance by Subbarayadu in relation to it and claimed a general account.
The Subordinate Judge made a decree for partition, and dealt with the various disputed items with regard to the family property, but refused a general account. He allowed Ramannas claim as adopted son to share equally with the plaintiffs and held that he should have one-eighth of the whole property.
There were separate appeals to the High Court. One (No. 104 of 1914) was by the plaintiffs, and another (No. 187 of 1914) was by defendants other than Ramanna and his sons.
The learned judges (Ayling and Srinivasa Ayyar JJ.) heard the appeals together. Pealing first with appeal No. 104 of 1914, they reversed the decision of the trial judge with regard to the share to which Ramanna was entitled, and held that he was entitled only to one-thirteenth of one-half of the family property—namely, one-fourth of the share of each of the plaintiffs. The judgment on this part of the case is set out in the judgment of the Judicial Committee, as also is that of the Subordinate Judge. The learned judges then proceeded to consider the various questions relating to the items of the property raised by that appeal and by the appeal No. 187 of 1914 ; they varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge in the manner appearing from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
Of the present consolidated appeals No. 18 of 1919 was from the decree of the High Court in appeal No. 187 of 1914, and No. 19 of 1919 was from the decree of the High Court in appeal No. 104 of 1914. The arguments relating to the share of the adopted son alone are reported.
1921. Feb. 24, 25, 28 ; March 1. Dunne K.C., Parikh and Narasimham for the appellants in both appeals. Among Sudras an adopted son shares in the family property equally with the after-born aurasa sons. In the case of the twice-born castes an adopted son assumes an inferior position as to offerings when a natural born son is born, and consequently receives a reduced share ; that reason however does not apply in the case of Sudras. The right of an adopted son in the case of Sudras rests on the Dattaka Chandrika, s. 5, § 29, which excludes Sudras from the operation of §§ 17 and 19 of that section, and § 32 make it clear that the rule is as stated. The rule relied on is recognized expressly in Stranges HINDU LAW , vol. i., 1830 ed., p. 99, and in W. H. Macnaghtens HINDU LAW , vol. i., 1829, p.
70. The high, and paramount, authority of the Dattaka Chandrika in Southern India has frequently been affirmed by the Board Rungama v. Atchama (( 1846) 4 Moo. I. A. 1, 97.) ; Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga Sathupathy (( 1863) 12 Moo. I. A. 397, 437.) ; Balusu Gurulingaswami v. Balusu Ramalakshmamma (( 1899) L. R. 26 I. A. 113, 131.) ; Bhagwan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh (( 1899) L.
R. 26 I. A. 153, 161.); Nagindas Bhagwandas v. Bachoo Hurkisondas . (( 1915) L. R. 43 I. A. 56.) The view now con tended for was laid down by the Madr
