ANTHONYSWAMY versus M. R. CHINNASWAMY KOUNDAN (DIED) BY L. RS. & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 06-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

6.48 
ANTBONYSWAMY 
v. 
M. R. CHINNASWAMY KOUNDAN (DIBD) BY L. RS. & ORS. 
October 6, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Hindu U.w-Christians governed by Hindu Mitakshara law-Whether 
doctrine of pious ob/igallion applicable. 
Pro1nissocy·note-When erulorsee could sue non-executant coparcener.r 
on the debt. 
The appellant filed a suit for declaring that certain execution procee<l-
ins resulting in the sale of the suit properties were invalid, and for parti-
tion of his share therein. 
The claim was based inter a/it; on : (I) that 
the appellant's family were Tamil Vannian Christians governed in 
the 
matter of inheritance and succession by the Hindu Mitakshara law includ-
ing the doctrine of right by birth, but not by that of pious obligation; and 
(2) that the debt was incurred on a promissory note and that the en-
dorsee of the note was not entitled to obtain a decree against the non-
executant cor>arceners for sale of the family propcrtie.s. 
HELD: (I) The doctrine of pious obligation is not merely a religous 
doctrine but has passed into the realm of law. It is an integral part of 
the Mitakshara school of the Hindu law, 
wherein, the sons. from 
the 
moment of their birth acquire along with their _father an interest in the 
joint family property. It is a 
necessary and logical 
corollary to the 
doctrine of right by birth and the two conceptions are correlated. The 
doctrine is in consonance with justice, equity and good conscience and 
is not opposed to any principle of Christianity. 
Therefore, the doctrine 
of pious obligation is applicable to the Tamil Vannian Christians wllo were 
governed by the Mitakshara law in matters of inheritance and succession. 
[653 G-H; 654 G-Hl 
Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Le// (1874) 1 I.A. 321, Suraj Bansi K'<r v. 
Sheo Prasad, (1880) 6 I.A. 88, 
Muttayan v. 
Zamindar 
of Sivagirl 
(1883) 9. L\. 128, Abraham v. Abraham, 9 M.I.A. 199, 
243, Brij 
Narain v. Mangal Prasad 51 I.A. 129 and Ba/akrishnan v. Chittoor Bank 
A.LR. 1936 Mad. 9137, referred to. 
(2) The endorsement in the present case was not a mere endorsement 
but it has been so worded as to transfer the debt also. Therefore, the en-
dorsee v,.·as entitled to bring a suit against the non-executant coparceners 
on the ground of their liability under Hindu Law. [655 G-H; 656 B.C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated July 13, 1960 of 
the Kerala High Cottrt in Appeal Suit No. 251 of 1956(E). 
V. S. Desai and R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the appellant. 
S. T. Desai, C. H. Subramanya Iyer and S. Balakrishnan, for 
re!pondent No. 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate from 
the judj!rncnt of the High Court of Kerala dated July 13, 1960 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ANTHONYSWAMS v. CltlNNASWAMY (Ramaswami, 1.) 
6.f,9 
in Appeal Suit No. 251 of 1956. By its judgment the High 
Court allowed the appeal of the deceased M. R. Chinnaswamy 
Goundan, 1st defendant, reversing the judgment and decree of 
the Subordinate Judge of Chittur in O.S. No. 131 of 1950 which 
the appellant had filed on March 31, 1949 in forma pauperis for 
declaring that certain execution proceedings resulting in the sale 
of suit properties were invalid and for partition of one-fourth 
share therein. 
The appellant also claimed in the alternative a 
decree for payment of Rs. 30,000/- as damages sustained by him 
on account of fraud and collusion in the execution proceedings. 
Th~ plaintiff is the son of the 8th defendant and the 9th 
defendant is the brother of the 8th defendant. 
The plaintiff and 
deiendants 8 and 9 are Tamil Vannian Christians of Chittur 
Taluk who are govem.~d in the matter of inheritance and succes-
sion by Hindu Mithakshara law. 
The plaintiff has acquired a 
right by birth in the ancestral properties and during the life-time 
of his father the son has a right to claim partition. 
The plaint 
properties belonged to the family of plaintiff and defendants 8 
and 9 which yield an annual profits of 4000 paras of paddy and 
Rs. 1,500/-. After the death of his father Kanakappa Koundan, 
the 8th defendant became the manager of the family. He led an 
immoral life and incurred debts for immoral purposes. He hypo-
thecated the family properties to the 5th defendant and obtained 
money. The 5th defend~nt sued upon the mortgage bond in O.S. 
No. 75 of 1107 (M.E.) of the Trichur District Cour

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