SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(AP) 6

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.A.CHOUDHARY
Sirusolla Gangamma - Appellant
Versus
Sirusolla Varahalu Naidu - Respondent
A. S. No. 548/77
Decided On : 01-21-82
Advocates Appeared :
.

Headnote:HINDU LAW - Composite Hindu Family - Express or implied - agreement is a necessary condition for the Constitution of a Composite Hindu Family - Composite Hindu Family cannot be brought into existence without proof of a family custom.

       HELD: In this case, there is no evidence of any agreement either between K and C or between K and B. The uncertain allegation that K and C lived together and managed their properties together and enjoyed them together and messed together is more than outweighed by the documentary proof available in this case showing that both during the lifetime of C and K the properties were separately owned and held. The documentary evidence clearly establishes that the properties were being purchased and sold both during the life time of C and K and K and B separately. The conduct of the parties treating the properties as belonging to them separately is wholly inconsistent with the theory of a composite family and merging of individual identities of the two families. There is no case set up regarding the existence of any territorial custom or a family custom Equally. there is no proof.

       A. S. DISMISED.

       

( 1 ) BOTH Kondadu and Chitti ayyababu were farmers. Inter-marriages were a rule among such families. Chitti ayyababu married Kondadu s sister atchamma. Kondadu married Chitti ayyababu s daughter Narasamma. Kondadu begot two sons by Narasamma. They are, padda Ayyababu and Chinna Ayyababu and one daughter Syamalamma. Chitti Ayyababu got a son by name Brahma Demudu. Brahma demudu married Kondadu s daughter syamalamma. Out of this marital alliance, brahma Demudu got a daughter by name gangamma who was married to Kondadu s first son, Pedda Ayyababu. Kondadu s second son alone married, Arjanamma, outside this closed circle of family relatives.

( 2 ) AFTER his marriage, Kondadu moved into his father-in-law Chitti Ayyababu s family. Both families worked together, but do not seem to have added much to their wealth. A farmer s life was specially hard in those days. So long Chitti Ayyababu was alive, he managed with the little extents of properties belonging to his family and that of Kondadu. After his death, Kondadu took over the management looked after his estate and that of his brother-in-law, Brahma Demudu. Tradition was still virile then that such management of agricultural properties belonging to close, but young relatives was undertaken as a sacred trust. During his management, Kondadu seemed to have added to the wealth of the family. After the death of Kondadu, Brahma demudu took over the management. After the death of Brahma Demudu, the male line of Chitti Ayyababu came to an end and with the marriage of Pedda Ayyababu to Brahma demudu s daughter, Gangamma, the family of Chitti Ayyababu almost merged into that of Kondadu. After the death of Brahma demudu, who amongst Pedda Ayyababu and chinna Ayyababu managed what properties, does not appear clearly in the evidence. But the long bond of mutual trust and affection and family devotion was snapped with the death of Chinna Ayyababu, the second son of Kondadu in the year 1963. Chinna ayyababu s widow, Arjanamma together with her two sons and daughter, all three minors, sued her brother-in-law Pedda ayyababu and his wife Gangamma and their three minor children. The suit was filed for partition of the plaint, A, B and C schedule properties into two equal shares and for possession of one such share and other incidental reliefs. The suit passed through the proverbial laws delays. The suit was pending for a long period of ten years on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, visakhapatnam. During its pendency Arjanamma died and one of her daughters Verahalamma became a major. At long last the subordinate Judge came to his judgment on 23rd April, 1977. On that day, the Subordinate judge decreed the suit and directed the plaint schedule properties should be divided into two equal shares and that one such share should be given to the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) AGAINST that decree, Pedda Ayyababu and his wife Gangamma and their minor children, filed the present appeal.

( 4 ) THE case of the heirs of Chinna Ayyababu is rather simple. They claim half share in the joint family property left behind by kondadu and clearly belonging to Pedda ayyababu and Chinna Ayyababu This coparcenary claim of the heirs of Chinna ayyababu is opposed by the branch of Pedda ayyababu on the basis that the family of brahma Demudu is entitled to half share in the combined total property belonging to kondadu s family and Brahma Demudu s family. According to Pedda Ayyababu, the property belonging to Kondadu and Brahma damudu was merged into one composite family by an agreement entered into between kondadu and Chitti Ayyababu and that therefore, the total property of these two families should be divided into two shares between the family of Kondadu and the family of Brahma demudu and Chiana Ayyababu and Pedda ayyababu should equally share in the half share belonging to Kondadu s family. According to Hindu Jaw, the property left behind Kondadu, cannot be claimed to be shared by the daughter of Brahma Demudu. But Gangamma has
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top