Back
1964 Supreme(Mad) 110
Madras High Court
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER,VENKATADRI
Minor Balasubramania Reddi by next friend Ramachandra Reddiar - Appellant
Versus
Narayana Reddiar - Respondent
Decided On : 03/10/1964
T.K. Subramania Pillai, for Appellant; T.R. Ramachandran and N. Varadarajan, for Respondents.
A minor is incompetent to contract, and therefore an agreement to reunite cannot be made by or on behalf of a minor.
Headnote:
HINDU LAW - PARTITION - REUNION - BURDEN OF PROOF - MINORITY - INCOMPETENCY TO CONTRACT - AGREEMENT TO REUNITE - HINDU MINOR'S LAW - INCOMPETENCY TO CONTRACT - AGREEMENT TO REUNITE - CANNOT BE MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF A MINOR.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the son of the second defendant and grandson of the first defendant, filed a suit for partition of the properties described in schedules A, B, and C and allotment of one such share to him. The first defendant and his four sons constituted members of a Hindu joint family. In 1929, the eldest son expressed a desire to separate himself from the joint family, and the first defendant effected a partition among his sons, allotting one share to the eldest son and putting him in possession of his share of the properties. The plaintiff alleged that even after the partition, the other members of the family continued to live together as members of a reunited family under the management of the first defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a complete and effective partition in 1929, that there was no reunion among the members of the family after the partition, that the first defendant handed over the properties to his sons on their attaining majority, and that the plaintiff cannot claim a share either in the properties purchased in the individual names of defendants 1, 3, and 4 or in the properties settled on the 5th defendant.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a reunion of the members of the family after partition was effected in the year 1929? 2. Whether the second defendant received his share of the properties when he became major?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Hindu family is presumed to be joint until the contrary is proved. Once a general partition has taken place, reunion is the only means by which the original joint status can be re-established and the remaining coparceners can again become members of the joint Hindu family. 2. The burden of proving the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which a party claims to rely is on the party who asserts it. 3. Reunion under the Hindu law is a product of agreement, express or implied. It can be done not only by express contract but also by agreement implied from the conduct of the parties. 4. An agreement to reunite need not be in writing. Even though a partition has been effected by a registered deed or by a decree of court, the parties may reunite by oral agreement. 5. A minor is incompetent to contract, and therefore an agreement to reunite cannot be made by or on behalf of a minor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, confirming the lower court's decree that the plaintiff is only entitled to a two-third share in the A schedule properties and in schedule B-8 property in regard to which there is no dispute.
VENKATADRI, J. :- This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, whose suit for partition of the properties described in schedules A, B and C and allotment of one such share to him was substantially dismissed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Vellore.
2. The plaintiff is the son of the second defendant and the grandson of the first defendant Narayana Reddiar. Narayana Reddiar had four sons Venkatarama Reddi, Govinda Reddi (plaintiff's father), Venkatakrishna Reddi, 3rd defendant, and Gopalakrishna Reddi, 4th defendant, and one daughter Rajambal Ammal, 5th defendant. Venkatarama Reddi is not a party to the suit. The case as set up by the next friend of the minor plaintiff Balasubramania Reddi is that the first defendant and his four sons constituted members of a Hindu joint family. In the year 1929 when Venkatarama Reddi, the eldest son of the first defendant, expressed a desire to separate himself from the joint family, the first defendant effected a partition on 22-10-1929 in and by which he divided the joint family properties among his sons and allotted one share to his eldest son Venkatarama Reddi and put him in possession of his share of the properties. As defendants 2 to 4 were minors at the time of the partition, the first defendant was in possession and management of the properties allotted to them it is the case of the plaintiff that even after the partition the other members of the family continued to live together as members of a reunited family under the management of the first defendant.
It is alleged in the plaint that three sums of Rs. 1000 each were set apart at the time of the partition for the marriage expenses of defendants 2 to
4, and the plaintiff now calls upon the first defendant to account for these sums. It is further alleged in the plaint that during the management of the first defendant, several properties were purchased in the name of himself and his sons and daughter from and out of the income of the joint family. The plaintiff claims a share in all these properties stating that they are joint family properties in which he has got l/8th share and prays for partition and allotment of his share. The plaintiff also alleges that the first defendant lent moneys to various persons amounting to Rs. 15000 from and out of the joint family income. Further the first defendant in order to benefit his daughter 5th defendant is alleged to have executed a settlement deed in respect of the property described in schedule B(1). Alleging that his interests would be considerably jeopardised if he continues to live jointly with defendants 1 to 4, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for partition of the properties described in schedules A, B and C to the plaint.
3. The suit was resisted by all the defendants. They filed written statements to the effect that there was a partition in the year 1929, whereby specific shares were allotted to each of the sons of the first defendant, and that the properties allotted to the sons were handed over to them as and when they became major and subsequently they were in possession and management of their respective properties and were purchasing from and out of the income thereof several items of properties in their names. The plaintiffs father second defendant received his share of the properties in 1932, when he became major and was managing the same through his brother-in-law. The first defendant also pleaded in his written statement that whatever properties he settled on his daughter, fifth defendant, belong to him being his self acquisitions and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in respect of those properties. The second defendant, i.e. plaintiff's father, pleaded in his written statement that he has no interest in the properties purchased in the names of the first defendant or the other defendants. The 4th defendant alleged in his written statement that the properties standing in his name were acquired from his own funds, but pleade
