A release deed executed by one coparcener to another coparcener in a joint family property operates for the benefit of all coparceners, including those who were not parties to the deed.

1. An interesting question of law is involved in this second appeal. The defendant in O.S. 560 of 1974 is the appellant in this second appeal The respondents plaintiffs in that action brought the said suit for partition, for recovery of future mesne profits and for rendition of accounts. The respondents contended that the suit properties are the ancestral properties in the hands of their father and his brother, the appellant, that the release deed Ex. A1, dated 30th April, 1957 executed by their father in favour of the appellant where by their father purported to surrender not only his interest but also the interest of the plaintiffs on the suit property will not bind their interests and therefore, they are entitled to a half share in the property.

2. The defence is, the original to Ex. A1 is really a sale, that such a sale was for discharging antecedent debts and that therefore Ex. A1 is binding on the respondents. It is unnecessary to refer to the other defences taken by the appellants viz., that the properties are not the joint-family properties in the hands of the plaintiffs father and the appellant, because there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below holding otherwise and because the learned counsel for the appellant had not made any submission in this connection. It may also be stated that the property obtained by the respondents father and the appellant under Ex. A3 dated 1st July, 1942 was held to be the separate property of both the respondents father and the appellant and therefore, the suit was dismissed so far as that particular item is concerned and that Ex. A3 related to southern half out of 3.80 cents in S. No. 178/2. The respondents did not challenge that part of the decree rendered by the trial court and ther efore the decree dismissing the suit in respect of the said southern half in S. No. 178/2 has become final. This second appeal is therefore confined to northern half of S. No. 178/2 measuring 1.90 acres and the other item comprised in S. No. 178/3 measuring 1.44 cents together with a motor pumpset of 7 H.P.

3. The trial court held that Ex. A1 is a sale and therefore dismissed the suit without costs.

4. On appeal A.S. No. 95 of 1977, the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, held that these two items which are subject-matter of this appeal are joint-family properties, that there was no necessity for the respondents father to execute Ex. A1, release deed and that no benefit was derived by their father under the said document. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the finding given by the trial court that Ex. A1 amounted to a sale deed, cannot be considered as correct. The learned Subordinate Judge also held that Ex. A1 release deed will enure to the benefit of all the members of the coparcenary in the instant case not only the appellant but also the respondents relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Subbanna v. Balasubba Reddi 1. In the above view, he allowed the appeal and granted a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the respondents half share. Hence, this second appeal.

5. It is a well settled principle of law that a member of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law cannot give his interest in the family estate to one of several coparceners if they remain joint in estate and in such circumstances, he can relinquish his interest but the relinquishment operates for the benefit of all the other members— See Subbanna v. Balasubba Reddi 1 and Viswanatha Chettiar and others v.

Deivanayaga Chettiar 2. It is also well settled that a registered instrument styled a release deed releasing the right, title and interest of the executant in any property in favour of the releasee for valuable consideration may effect a transfer and though the word ‘surrender’ is used and though the document is styled a release deed, it operates as an assignment—See Thattil Wanng v. Kottiath Ramunni 3. To the same effect is the decision in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Arum