1. Suit for partition by minor sons against father in a Hindu joint family governed by Mitakshara law — dispute over property character and minors' benefit. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1947 Supreme(SC) 40
Privy Council At Madras
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Uthwatt , Justice Lord Simonds, JJ.
Appalaswami -Appellant
Versus
Suryanarayanamurti and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 36 of 1944
Decided On : 02-07-1947
Advocates Appeared:
Chapman Walkers, Dold , Douglas Grant , White, Lambert , S.P. Khambatta, Sir Herbert Cunliffe , P.V. Subba Raw, W.W.K. Page
Chapman Walkers, Dold , Douglas Grant , White, Lambert , S.P. Khambatta, Sir Herbert Cunliffe , P.V. Subba Raw, W.W.K. Page
Under Mitakshara law, the birth of new coparceners does not justify a partition suit for minors. Additionally, while a joint family nucleus shifts the burden of proof to the party claiming self-acquisition, this burden is discharged if the nucleus is insufficient to have funded the acquisitions.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Mitakshara School - Partition - Minor's Interest - A suit for partition brought on behalf of minors must be in their interest. Estrangement between family members that arises after the institution of a suit cannot justify the filing of such a suit. Furthermore, the potential reduction of a minor's share in joint family property due to the birth of subsequent sons is not a valid ground for partition, as the fluctuating nature of individual interests due to births and deaths is a fundamental essence of a coparcenary under the Mitakshara School. (Para 9)
(B) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - Nucleus Theory - The mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption that property held by a member is joint; the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the property is joint. However, if it is established that the family possessed joint property which, by its nature and value, could have formed a nucleus for further acquisitions, the burden shifts to the party claiming self-acquisition to prove that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family nucleus. (Para 11)
(C) Evidence Act - Section 92 - Acts of generosity or kindness should not be construed as admissions of legal obligation. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Minor sons filed a suit for partition against their father and half-brother, alleging that the father had led a profligate life, squandered family funds, and committed malversation. The father contended that the properties in question were self-acquired through his own individual exertions and that the suit was not in the interest of the minors. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the allegations of misconduct unproven and the suit not in the minors' interest. The High Court reversed this, holding that the suit was in the minors' interest due to family estrangement and the birth of new sons, and that the properties were joint family assets because the father's business was treated as joint during a previous partition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in holding that the birth of new sons justified the suit, as such fluctuations are inherent to coparcenary. Regarding the property, the court found that the joint family property acquired by the father in a previous partition was small, remained substantially intact, and its income was used for family expenses. There was no evidence that this nucleus assisted in the acquisition of the larger fortune acquired by the father's own energy and labour.
Issues: (1) Whether the suit for partition was filed for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs; (2) Whether the properties acquired after a previous partition were the separate property of the father or joint family property.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Mitakshara law, the inherent fluctuation of shares due to births and deaths cannot be a ground for a minor's suit for partition. While the existence of a joint family nucleus shifts the burden of proof to the party claiming self-acquisition, this burden is discharged if the nucleus is shown to be insufficient to have funded the subsequent acquisitions and has been kept distinct.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
Sir John Beaumont:-
This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 24-4-1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmundry dated 1-11-1937.
[2] The parties are members of a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought on 10-12-1935, by respondents 1 and 2, who were then minors, by one Krishnamurti their maternal uncle and next friend, against the appellant, who was their father by his first marriage, and respondent 3 who was the son of the appellant by his second marriage.
[3] The questions which arise are (1) whether the suit was for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs and (2) whether the property specified in schedule 1 to the written statement of the appellant is his separate property or is joint family property belonging to him and the first two respondents. In the view their Lordships take of the case a further question as to whether respondent 3 is entitled to a share in the joint family property does not call for decision.
[4] It is common, ground that down to the year 1917 the appellant, his father and two brothers were members of a joint Hindu family, and that a partition took place between them on 14-5-1917, upon terms contained in a partition deed which is Exhibit A. Further reference to this deed will be made hereafter.
[5] The first wife of the appellant died in October 1933, having had two sons, the first two respondents, and three daughters by the appellant, and on 9-11-1935, the appellant married a second wife. The second marriage of the appellant was resented by the members of the first wife's family and by some of the members of his own family, and this suit was filed a month after the marriage.
[6] By the plaint it was alleged that after the death of the first wife the appellant began to lead a reckless and profligate life, that he ran into heavy debts through his immoral pursuits and had been squandering the family funds, that he contracted a marriage secretly with a girl which was considered very objectionable and incestuous by the members of the community and which resulted in a social ostracism of the defendant. It was further alleged that the appellant had committed the following acts of malversation: (a) The appellant borrowed heavy sums without legal necessity or any justifiable purpose or any family benefit, mostly for purposes of his immoral pursuits. (b) He lent large sums to persons connected with his immoral conduct without any intention or reasonable likelihood of recovering the same, thereby causing heavy loss to the family. The appellant also allowed some debts to get barred and uncollected. (c) The appellant was spending large sums from the family funds. on his immoral pursuits and got the same debited in the family accounts under false entries for fictitious purposes. (d) He employed in his business relations of his second wife at heavy salaries without any need and allowed them to draw heavy sums from family funds. (e) The appellant had neglected to get his eldest daughter married though she had attained age and should have been married according to usages of the caste and family tradition more than a year before. (f) The appellant had developed dissatisfaction and contempt for his children by the deceased wife and treated them with cruelty and exhibited culpable negligence in regard to their needs. (g) That it was not possible for the plaintiffs and their sisters consistently with their personal safety, family status, and respectability to reside with the defendant or his newly wedded wife.
[7] By his written statement the appellant alleged that the properties shown in Sch. 1 thereto were his self-acquired properties and that the plaintiffs had no right to ask for partition of the same; that he had acquired such properties by his own individual exertions without the aid of any other member or any ancestral family nucl
