ADDAGADA RAGHAVAMMA AND ANR. versus ADDAGADA CHENCHAMMA AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 09-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
933 
and answer the question . in favour of the assessee. 
The assessee will be entitled to the costs throughout. 
Appeals allowed. 
ADDAGADA RAGH.\VAMMA AND ANR. 
"· 
ADDAGADA CHENCHAMMA AND ANR. 
(K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Hindu Law-Partition-Adoption-Burden of proof and 
onu• of proof-Di•tinction-S.paration-Elements necessa'71 
to make it effective-Declaration and knowledge-Doctrine. of 
relation back if affect vested right-Concurrent findings of fact, 
if and when can be interfered with'-Oertifir,ate granted under 
Art. 133-Scope and limit-Constitution of India, Art. 133 . 
The appellants and the respondents trace their interest 
and rights through their genealogy to one Veeranna who died 
in 1906. One of his sons Pitchayya, predeceased him in 1905 
and it is alleged that sometime before his death Pitchayya took 
Venkayya, the son of his brother Chimpirayya, in adoption. 
It is further alleged that a partition of the joint family proper-
ties.between Veeranna and his four sons took place. Venl>ayya 
died in 1938 having a •on Subbarao. Chimpirayya died in 
1945 having executed a will whereun<ler he gave his properties 
in equal shares to Subbarao 
and Kamalamma, the daughter 
of.his predeceased daughter. He also directed Raghavamma, 
the wife of his brother Pitchayya, to take possession of' the 
entire property belonging to him, manage it and to hand over 
the same to his two grand children when they attained majo-· 
.rity. Chimpirayya excluded his daughter-in-law Chenchamma 
from management as well as inheritance. But Raghavamma 
allowed Chenchamma to take 
possession of the property. 
Subbarao died in 1949. In 1950, Raghavamma filed a.suit for 
possession of the property impleading Chenchamma &s the first 
defendant, Kamalamma as the second defendant and Runn~yya 
as· the tJiird defendant. 
1963 
Champaru. Cane 
Conce1n 
v. 
Sttlfe of 13ihar 
Dai J • 
1963 
April 9, 
Ju.,-. 
R"l/wJ..,.,.. 
v. 
J.Uopm 
c ............ 
934 SUPREN.IE COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. 
Chenchamma, the first defendant and the present first 
respondent, contended that Venkayya was not given in adoption 
and that there was no partition as alleged by the plaintiff. 
She averred that Chimpirayya died undivided from his grand· 
son Subbarao and therefore, Subbarao became entitled to all 
the properties of the joint' family by 1 ight of survivorship. 
The trialJudge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff 
had not established adoption of Venkayya 
by her hasband 
Pitchayya and that she aho failed to prove that Cnimpirayya 
and Pitchayya were divided from each other and in the result 
dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court upheld the 
above two findings ol the trial Judge. A new plea was raised 
by the appellant before the 
High Court that the will executed 
by Chimpirayya contained a clear intention to divide and that 
this declaration constituted a severance in status enal,Jing him 
to execute a will. The High Cc..urt rejected this contention 
also and in the result dismis<ed the appeal. 
On appeal by certificate, the appellants contended : ( l) 
that the findings of the High Court on adoption as well as on 
partition were vitiated by the High Court not drawing the 
relevant presumptions permissible in the case of old transac-
tions, not appreciating the great evidentiary value of public 
documents, ignoring or at any rate nor giving weight to 
admissions made by parties and witnesses, adopting a mechani-
cal instead of an 
intellectual approach and perspective and 
above all ignoring the consistent conduct of parties "spread over 
a long period, inevitably leading to the conclusion that the 
adoption and the partition set up by the appellant were true. 
(2) On the assumption that there was no partition by metes 
and bounds, the court should have held on the basis ot the 
entire evidence that there was a division in status between 
C.himpirayya and Pitchayya, conferring on Chimpirayya the 
right to bequeath his divided share of the family property. 
• 
(3) The will itself contained recitals emphasizing the fact that 
he had all through been a divided member of the family and 
that on the date of execution of the will he continued to 
possess that character of a divided member so as to entitle 
him to execute the will in respect of his share and, therefore, 
the recitals in the will themselves constituted an unambiguous 
declaration of his intention to divide and the fac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.