Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Potti Lakshmi Perumallu, Appellant
Versus
Potti Krishnavenamma, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 519 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Mr. T.N. R. Tatachari, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; M/s. G. Venkatarama Sastri and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for Respondent.
HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937 - SECTION 3(2) - WIDOW'S SHARE IN JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - DETERMINED AS ON DATE OF PARTITION, NOT DATE OF HUSBAND'S DEATH.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the widow of a deceased coparcener, sought partition and separate possession of certain movable and immovable properties, claiming half share in the entire property by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. The defendant, the deceased coparcener's brother, contested the claim, contending that the properties were acquired by the brothers by their individual efforts and treated as self-acquisition, that the will executed by the deceased coparcener was valid and binding on the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was entitled to only 1/4th share in the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below found that the suit properties were the joint family properties of the deceased coparcener and the defendant, that the will executed by the deceased coparcener was inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the will executed by the deceased coparcener resulted in severance in the status of the two brothers constituting the joint family? 2. Whether the will should be construed as a family arrangement made by the karta of the family and assented to by the defendant and the father and the foster-father of the plaintiff on her behalf? 3. Whether the interest to which the plaintiff would be entitled would be 1/4th share in the property and not half share therein?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The will did not unmistakably show that the deceased coparcener had expressed his unequivocal intention to get separated in status. The recitals in the will did not indicate a clear intention to put an end to the coparcenary. 2. There was complete absence of evidence to show that there was an occasion for effecting a family arrangement and that the arrangement indicated in the will was acted upon. 3. The quantum of interest to which a Hindu widow is entitled under S. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 is to be determined as on the date on which she seeks to enforce partition under sub-s. (3) of S. 3. The widow's interest is a fluctuating one and is liable to increase or decrease according as there are deaths in or additions to the members of the family or according as there are accretions to or diminutions of the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decree of the High Court and allotting the respondent half share in the family property at its partition.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The interest of a Hindu widow in joint family property under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, is determined as on the date of partition, not the date of her husband's death. This means that her share fluctuates and is liable to increase or decrease depending on subsequent events such as deaths, additions, or diminutions within the family (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have established that properties acquired by the joint family are considered joint family properties unless there is clear evidence of individual effort or self-acquisition. The existence of a will does not necessarily imply a separation of status unless it explicitly indicates an intention to sever the coparcenary (!) (!) .
A will that does not unmistakably show an intention to end the coparcenary or to separate in status is generally not sufficient to establish a declaration of separation. The will's language and recitals are critically examined to determine whether it signifies an intention to sever the joint status (!) (!) .
A family arrangement intended for the benefit of the family can be enforced in court, but it must be shown that such an arrangement was occasioned and acted upon. Mere provisions in a will without evidence of family agreement or action are insufficient to establish a binding family arrangement (!) (!) .
The interest of a Hindu widow in joint family property, as provided under the relevant statute, is not a fixed share but a fluctuating one that reflects the same interest as her deceased husband. This interest is not acquired through survivorship but through statutory rights, and it can be affected by subsequent family events (!) (!) .
The interest devolving on the widow may be regarded as a statutory right, and not necessarily by inheritance or survivorship. This distinction influences how her share is calculated and whether she requires a succession certificate for its enforcement (!) (!) .
The legal principles affirm that the widow's share is to be ascertained at the time she seeks partition, aligning with her current rights and the fluctuating nature of her interest, rather than strictly at her husband's date of death (!) (!) .
The courts have consistently held that the right of a widow to a share in joint family property is a statutory right that grants her a right akin to that of a coparcener, subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed by law (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal position emphasizes that the widow's interest is dynamic, and the determination of her rightful share depends on the circumstances at the time of partition, not solely on her husband's death or any specific legal fiction of inheritance or survivorship (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the decrees for partition and separate possession of certain movable and immovable properties, passed by the second Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada.
2. The genealogical table showing the relationship between the parties set out below will be of assistance in appreciating the facts of the case :
POTTI SUBBA RAO
(died in 1919)
First wife Sitaramaiah (died on 10-8-1938) Second wife(Plaintiff) Krishna venamma Lakshmi Perumallu(defendant) Krishnamurti (died in 1930)
Pulla Rao (died in 1939)
Potti Subba Rao who died in the year 1919 was survived by three sons Sitaramiah, Lakshmi Perumallu and Krishnamurti. Sitaramaiah was married twice. From the first wife he had a son named Pulla Rao. After the death of the first wife he married Krishnavenamma, the plaintiff in the suit. Sitaramaiah died on August 10, 1938. No issue was born to Krishnavenamma who was only 14 years of age at the time of Sitaramaiah s death. Pulla Rao died in the year 1939 at the age of 11 years. Krishnamurti died in the year 1930 i.e. , before sitaramaiah, without leaving any issue or a widow. The plaintiff continued to stay in the same house as the defendant till the beginning of July, 1950. Then she suddenly left the house and instituted the suit in question on the 6th of that month. According to her Sitaramaiah and his two brothers, the defendant and Krishnamurti, acquired large movable and immovable property at Vijayawada, described in the schedule to the plaint, with the aid of their ancestral business. She claimed half share in the entire property set out in the schedules, by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Women s Rights to Property Act, 1937. She admitted that her husband had purported to execute a will before his death but contended that it was inoperative because he was a member of a Hindu joint family at the time of his death.
3. The defendant contested the claim on various grounds. According to him there was no ancestral property and the suit properties were acquired by the brothers by their individual efforts and treated as self-acquisition. Further according to him the will executed by Sitaramaiah is vali and binding on the plaintiff and that the property allotted to the plaintiff under the will was being enjoyed by the plaintiff and further the properties allotted to Pulla Rao devolved upon him after Pulla Rao s death. Lastly, according to him even if the property were held to be joint family property of Sitaramaiah and the defendant the plaintiff would be entitled only to 1/4th share in them and not half share.
4. The courts below have found that the suit properties were the joint family properties of Sitaramaiah and the defendant, that the will executed by Sitaramaiah was inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit properties. The trial court give direction to the effect that a commissioner be appointed for ascertaining the property liable to be partitioned and for dividing them into two equal shares by metes and bounds for the purpose of awarding to the plaintiff the separate possession of her half share in the properties.
5. Mr. S. T. Desai who appears for the defendant-appellant has not challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below to the effect that the properties acquired by the family; were joint family properties. He, however, urged the following three contentions before us ;
(1) The will executed by Sitaramaiah on August 3, 1938 itself resulted in severance in the status of the two brothers constituting the joint family and that in any event separation ensued between them at the death of Sitaramaiah;
(2)that at any rate the will should be construed to be a family arrangement made by the karta of the family and assented to by the defendant and by the father and the foster-father of the plaintiff on her behalf;
(3) assuming that neither of the two
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
