Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, GOPALRAO EKBOLE
Panchagnula Sivasankaram - Appellant
Versus
Lanka Janikamma - Respondent
Decided On : 09-23-71
PARTITION - HINDU LAW - SISTERS INHERITING TO A BROTHER - TAKE AS TENANTS-IN-COMMON AND NOT AS JOINT TENANTS - PARTITION DEED - DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THE REVERSIONERS - ON THE DEATH OF ONE SISTER, THE LIFE ESTATE, WHICH SHE TOOK ALONG WITH HER SISTERS AS A TENANT-IN-COMMON, HAD TERMINATED LEAVING THE ESTATE OPEN FOR THE REVERSIONERS THAT BE - THE PLAINTIFF AND THE 5TH DEFENDANT BEING ADMITTEDLY REVERSIONERS TO THE ESTATE OF THEIR BROTHER ON THE DEATH OF THULASAMMA HAD INHERITED THE PROPERTY LEFT BY THULASAMMA - THE PRESENT SUIT FOR PARTITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The facts are not in dispute and may briefly be stated in so far as they are relevant for purposes of this appeal. There was one Chilla Venkatappaiah, who died in 1912 leaving behind him, a widow Manemma, a son Ramaiah and three daughters Janikamma, Thulasamma and Lakshmamma. Ramaiah died in 1928 unmarried. On Ramaiah's death, Manemma, his mother succeeded to his estate as a limited owner under Hindu law. By and under Exhibit A-1 dated 9th August, 1942, Manemma surrendered the estate which she inherited from her son Ramaiah in favour of her three daughters Kota Lakshmamma, Panchagnula Thulasamma and Lanka Janikamma. The said deed contained recitals to the effect that the three daughters should be in enjoyment of the property freely with absolute rights as hakkudars and from then onwards they should have Absolute rights in the surrendered property Five days after the execution of Exhibit A-1 i.e. on 14th August, 1942 the three daughters had separately executed three maintenance deeds, Exhibits A-3 to A-5, in favour of their mother. On the same day they had also executed a registered partition deed, Exhibit A-2, partitioning the properties which were surrendered to them under Exhibit A-1. Thereafter the properties were being enjoyed separately by the three sisters. Thulasamma, one of the sisters, died on 15th May, 1945. Janikamma, the plaintiff, filed the suit on 20th June, 1957 impleading her sister Kota Lakshmamma as the 5th defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two shares and for allotment of one share to her and the other to the 5th defendant her sister. Profits past and future were also asked for. It was contended in the plaint that by reason of the partition deed; Exhibit A-2, three sisters never intended to give up their rights of survivorship inter se, that the partition deed did not and could not put an end to such rights of survivorship and that on Thulasamma's death the plaintiff and the 5th defendant had become jointly entitled to the suit schedule properties.
Finding of the Court:
The solution to the problem depends upon the answer to two main questions; 1. Do the sisters who inherit property of their brother take as tenants-in-common or as joint tenants? and 2. What is the effect of Exhibit A-2, the partition deed, on the rights inter se among the three sisters ?
Issues: 1. Do the sisters who inherit property of their brother take as tenants-in-common or as joint tenants? 2. What is the effect of Exhibit A-2, the partition deed, on the rights inter se among the three sisters ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Sisters succeeding to the estate of a deceased brother after the Hindu law of Inheritance Amendment Act, 1929, take the property in a Hindu woman's estate. They take as tenants- in-common and not as joint tenants; 2. Any arrangement come to between them purporting to deal with it as if it were a joint estate with rights of survivorship does not affect the rights of the reversioners; 3. On the death. Thulasamma, the life estate, which she took along with her sisters as a tenant-in-common, had terminated leaving the estate open for the reversioners that be; 4. That the plaintiff and the 5th defendant being admittedly reversioners to the estate of their brother on the death of Thulasamma had inherited the property left by Thulasamma; 5. That the present suit for partition. is maintainable ; 6. That the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court and confumed by the learned Judge of this Court is correct in law and on the facts and is unassailable.
Final Decision: In the result the Letters Patent Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent appeal is filed against the Judgment of obul Reddi, j. in Appeal No. 300 of 1965. This judgment had confirmed the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole, in O. S. No. 39 of 1957. The facts are not in dispute and may briefly be stated in so far as they are relevant for purposes of this appeal.
( 2 ) THERE was one Chilla Venkatappaiah, who died in 1912 leaving behind him, a widow Manemma, a son Ramaiah and three daughters Janikamma, Thulasamma and Lakshmamma. Ramaiah died in 1928 unmarried. On Ramaiab s death, manemma, his mother succeeded to his estate as a limited owner under Hindu law. By and under Exhibit A-1 dated 9th August, 194. 2, Manemma surrendered the estate which she inherited from her son ramaiah in favour of her three darghters kota Lakshmamma, Panchagnula Thulasamma and Lanka Janikamma. The said deed contained recitals to the effect that the three daughters should be in enjoyment of the property freely with absolute rights as hakkudars and from then onwards they should have Absolute rights in the surrendered property Five days after the execution of Exhibit A-1 i. e. on 14th August, 1942 the three daughters had separately executed three maintenance deeds, Exhibits A-3 to A-5, in favour of their mother. On the same day they had also executed a registered partition deed, Exhibit A-2, partitioning the properties which were surrendered to them under Exhibit A-1. Thereafter the properties were being enjoyed separately by the three sisters. Thulasamma, one of the sisters, died on 15th May, 1945. Janikamma, the plaintiff, filed the suit on 20th June, 1957 impleading her sister kota Lakshmamma as the 5th defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two shares and for allotment of one share to her and the other to the 5th defendant her sister. Profits past and future were also asked for. It was contended in the plaint that by reason of the partition deed; Exhibit A-2, three sisters never intended to give up their rights of survivorship inter se, that the partition deed did not and could not put an end to such rights of survivorship and that on Thulasamma s death the plaintiff and the 5th defendant had become jointly entitled to the suit schedule properties. The twelve year period from the date of thularamma s death expired during the summer recess and the suit was filed on the reopening day of the Courts. It is not disputed that the suit is in time. After the death of Thulasamma, defendants 1 to 3 sons of Thulasamma, came into possession of the properties which fell to her share at the partition evidenced by Exhibit A-2. They began to deal with the property as if it were the absolute property of their mother which devolved on them on her death. It was alleged in the plaint inter alia that defendants 1 to 3 who are the sons of Thulasamma got into wrongful possession of the properties on the death of their mother and that they even sold item 3 of the plaint schedule to the 4th defendant. Defendants 6 to 11 to the suit were impleaded on the footing that they were tenants and that they were in possession of the plaint schedule properties.
( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 in the main contended that by reason of Exhibit A-2, the partition deed, among the sisters, the rights of survivorship were put an end to. The partition deed conferred an absolute right on each of the sisters on each of them agreeing to relinquish their rights of survivorship.
( 4 ) IT would appear that the plaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that on the death of Thulasamma, the plaint schedule properties reverted to the estate of ramaiah, their brother, who was the last male bolder and that they (Plaintiff and 5th defendant) had become reversioners to their brother Ramaiah and as such could claim possession of the plaint schedule properties. After this amendment of the plaint, defendants 1 to 3 filed an additional written statement reiterating their earlier stand in the written statement and denyi
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
