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

1963 Supreme(Mad) 101

Madras High Court
ANANTANARAYANAN,VENKATARAMAN
Kaliammal - Appellant
Versus
Muthu Pillai Alias Perathambia Pillai - Respondent
Decided On : 04/03/1963

Advocates:
R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar and V.C. Sri Kumar, for Appellants :K.S. Sankara Aiyar and V. Balasubramaniam, for Respondents.

As between atma bandhus, males will always have a preference over and will exclude the female reversioners.

Headnote:

HINDU LAW - INHERITANCE - ATMA BANDHUS - PREFERENCE OF MALE OVER FEMALE - SPIRITUAL BENEFIT - MADRAS LAW.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Vellaichami Pillai, filed a suit for a declaration of his title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The actual contest was between the plaintiff on the one hand and the 3rd defendant on the other. The 3rd defendant's claim of title arose thus: defendants 4 and 5 (Somasundaram Pillai and Chokku Pillai) were adjudicated insolvents in I. P. No. 5 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and their estate vested in the Official Receiver. On the footing that the suit properties belonged to defendants 4 and 5, the Official Receiver put up for sale the leasehold right in them for a period of one year, and the auction purchaser was the 2nd defendant. Later, the interest of the insolvents was put up for sale and the auction purchaser was the 3rd defendant, the price being Rs. 11,000. Thus, the question would be whether the plaintiff is entitled to the properties or whether the properties would belong to defendants 4 and 5 and consequently to the 3rd defendant.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the properties and that the properties would belong to defendants 4 and 5 and consequently to the 3rd defendant. The court found that the 3rd defendant's claim of title was valid and that the plaintiff's claim was not.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the properties? 2. Whether the properties would belong to defendants 4 and 5 and consequently to the 3rd defendant?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that as between atma bandhus, males will always have a preference over and will exclude the female reversioners. This principle is enunciated as early as ILR 13 Mad 10, and was reaffirmed as late as AIR 1949 Mad 779 by Rajagopalan, J. 2. The court also held that as between atma bandhus ex parte paterna and those ex parte materna, the former is entitled to preference. This principle was affirmed by the Judicial Committee in 48 Ind App 349 : (AIR 1922 PC 33). 3. The court further held that the doctrine of spiritual benefit or religious efficacy is a ground of preference among bandhus of the same class. This principle is grounded on a text of Viramitrodaya, a Benares authority, and was expressed by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in Muthusami v. Muthu Kumaraswami, ILR 16 Mad 23.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with the costs of the contesting respondent (third defendant).

Judgement

VENKATARAMAN, J. : This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit (O. S. No. 99 of 1955) filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The plaintiff in the suit (Vellaichami Pillai) is the appellant before us. The suit was brought for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The actual contest is between the plaintiff on the one hand and the 3rd defendant on the other. The 3rd defendant's claim of title arises thus : defendants 4 and 5 (Somasundaram Pillai and Chokku Pillai) were adjudicated insolvents in I. P. No. 5 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and their estate vested in the Official Receiver. On the footing that the suit properties belonged to defendants 4 and 5, the Official Receiver put up for sale the leasehold right in them for a period of one year, and the auction purchaser was the 2nd defendant. Later, the interest of the insolvents was put up for sale and the auction purchaser was the 3rd defendant, the price being Rs. 11,000. Thus, the question would be whether the plaintiff is entitled to the properties or whether the properties would belong to defendants 4 and 5 and consequently to the 3rd defendant. Ultimately, before us, only two points were pressed by Sri Gopalaswami Iyengar, the learned counsel for the appellant, which will be indicated in due course. But for coming to a decision on one of the two points, namely, the date of death of Muthuswami Pillai, the father of the plaintiff, it will be necessary to refer briefly to some of the other matters.

2. The admitted last male owner of the property was Periya Appavoo Pillai, who died in 1909, leaving him surving two widows, Sivayogathammal and Rakkammal. Since the mother of defendants 4 and 5 is also known as Rakkammal, it will be convenient to refer to Periya Appavoo Pillai's widow as Rakkammal No. 1 and to the mother of defendants 4 and 5 as Rakkammal No. 2. The two widows, Sivayogathammal and Rakkammal No. 1, inherited the property of Periya Appavoo Pillai, of course in the limited estate known to Hindu law as the Hindu Women's Estate. Sivayogathammal died in 1943. The surviving widow, Rakkammal No. 1 died on 15-7-1944. About these facts, there is no dispute. The plaint, when it was filed on 20-6-1962, proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff was the next reversioner to Periya Appavoo Pillai on the death of Rakkammal No. 1. This was the main basis on the plaintiff's claim. There was also a subsidiary basis that the widow had surrendered possession to him in 1921 itself and the plaintiff claimed that he would be entitled to relief on the strength of this possessory title referring to the main basis of the title claimed by the plaintiff. The plaint gives a geneological table, showing how he and defendants 4 and 5 were related to the last male owner, Periya Appavoo Pillai. For our purpose, we may omit some of the names mentioned there, and it is sufficient to exhibit the following genealogical table :

It will be seen that Periya Appavoo Pillai's father's sister was Ulagayee and the plaintiff is Ulagayee's son's son. That is to say, the plaintiff is Periya Appavoo's father's sister's son's son. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of Kandaswami Pillai, the deceased brother of the plaintiff. Thus defendants 4 and 5 would be Periya Appavoo Pillai's father's sister's son's son's sons. The plaint proceeded on the fooling that defendants 4 and 5 were not related to the last male owner, Periya Appavoo Pillai, in any other way. The plaint stated that Muthuswami Pillai, the father of the plaintiff, died on 28-4-1944 before Rakammal No. 1 died. On that footing and on the assumption that defendants 4 and 5 were not related to Periya Appavoo Pillai in any other way, undoubtedly, the plaintiff would be the next reversioner to Periya Appavoo Pillai. Both the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 4 and 5 on the other hand






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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