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

1976 Supreme(Ker) 17

Judges : K.K.NARENDRAN
RADHAKRISHNA MENON - Appellant
Versus
VILLAGE OFFICER - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 283 of 1974
Decided On : 01/22/1976
Advocates Appeared :
T. R. Govinda Warrier; K. Ramakumar; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondent

A severance in status can be effected by a clear declaration for partition, and such severance takes place from the date of the agreement, not postponed until an actual division of the property by metes and bounds is made.

Headnote:

Joint Family Status - Marumakkathayam tarwad - Ext. P-4 karar - Severance of joint family status - Effect of agreement for partition - Liability for levy - [JOINT FAMILY STATUS] - [Marumakkathayam tarwad] - [Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan (AIR. 1960 SC. 335), Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narisngsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi (AIR. 1961 SC. 1077), Raghavamma Chenchamma (AIR. 1964 SC. 136), Jose Philip Thayyil v. Taluk Supply Officer, Kottayam (OP. No. 1869 of 1973), Mahalinga Bhatt v. State of Kerala (1969 KLT. 792)] - The court discussed the effect of an agreement for partition in a Marumakkathayam tarwad and the liability for levy in the context of joint family status. It emphasized that a severance in status can be effected by a clear declaration for partition, and such severance takes place from the date of the agreement, not postponed until an actual division of the property by metes and bounds is made. The court also highlighted the principle that the actual cultivation by a member does not make them liable for the levy in respect of any land not set apart to them as per the partition agreement. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the agreements and legal principles established in the referenced cases, leading to the setting aside of the orders insisting on levy against the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a junior member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad, was managing the properties as a stop-gap arrangement in view of an agreement for partition. The petitioner's grievance was against orders insisting on levy for the tarwad properties. The question was the effect of the partition agreement on the joint family status and the petitioner's liability for the levy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that a severance in status took place from the date of the partition agreement, not postponed until an actual division of the property by metes and bounds is made. The petitioner, as a member managing the properties, was not liable for the levy in respect of any land not set apart to them as per the partition agreement. The court set aside the orders insisting on levy against the petitioner.

Issues: Effect of partition agreement on joint family status, petitioner's liability for levy, interpretation of Ext. P-4 karar, and the authority's power to proceed against individual members of the tarwad.

Ratio Decidendi: A severance in status can be effected by a clear declaration for partition, and such severance takes place from the date of the agreement, not postponed until an actual division of the property by metes and bounds is made. The actual cultivation by a member does not make them liable for the levy in respect of any land not set apart to them as per the partition agreement.

Final Decision: The original petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner in this original petition was a junior member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad who was put in charge of the management of the properties as a stop-gap arrangement in view of Ext. P-4 karar, entered into between the members of the tarwad, for partition. The grievance of the petitioner is against Exts. P-1, P-3 and P-6 orders insisting that the petitioner should measure the levy in respect of the tarwad properties. The question that arises for consideration is as to what is the effect of an agreement between the members of the tarwad for dividing the tarwad properties and whether there will be a severance of the joint family status from the date of agreement or the same will be postponed to the actual division of the properties by metes and bounds. If there is a severance of the joint family status from the date of the karar, it goes without saying that the petitioner who was only a member of the tarwad cannot be asked to measure levy in respect of any property which is not set apart to bis share.

2. As early as 30th November 1970 the petitioner and the other members of the tarwad entered into Ext. P-4 karar for partitioning the tarwad properties. In Ext. P-4 the petitioner was put in charge of the management of the properties till a partition deed is got executed. The 1st respondent-Village Officer, Karimpuzha issued Ext. P-1 levy notice to the petitioner demanding 32 quintals and 5 kgs. of paddy in respect of 8 acres and 9 cents of properties belonging to the tarwad for the 1973 Kanni crop. The petitioner filed Ext. P-2 objections making it clear that Ext. P-4 agreement for partition of the tarwad was already entered into by the members of the tarwad and in pursuance of the above agreement the properties were actually put in possession of the respective sharers, himself keeping possession of only 1 acre. The names of the members of the tarwad to whom properties were allotted in pursuance of Ext. P-1 agreement were also given in Ext. P-2 objections. But the 2nd respondent-Taluk Supply Officer, Ottapalam by Ext. P-3 rejected the petitioner's objections mainly on the ground that the whole cultivation was done by the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext. P-3 appeal before the 3rd respondent-District Supply Officer, Palghat. But the same was dismissed by Ext. P-6 order. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this original petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent-District Supply Officer, Palghat. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit.

3. Shri T. R. Govinda Wariyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the effect of Ext. P4 karar entered into in November 1970 is that there was an actual severance of joint family status as soon as it was executed even though the properties were divided into metes and bounds only later. Learned counsel also contends that the fact that Ext. P4 was not registered is immaterial. According to the learned counsel, even if the petitioner did the cultivation in the whole of the properties in question, that cannot be a reason to make the petitioner liable for measuring the levy as because of Ext. P4 the petitioner seized to have the power to dispose of the paddy obtained from the properties allotted to the other members of the tarwad. Learned counsel also has a contention that even if the contention of respondents 2 and 3 that actual partition of the tarwad had not taken place before the crop in question is accepted, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the levy since he was not the karanavan of the tarwad. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies on three decisions of the Supreme Court and a Bench decision of this Court. In Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan (AIR. 1960 SC. 335) it is said:

"A division in status can be effected by an unambiguous declaration to become divided from the others and that intention can be expressed by any process. Though prima facie a document cl
















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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top