CHINTAMANI AMMAL versus NANDAGOPAL GOUNDER AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

'r 
CHINTAMANI AMMAL 
A 
v. 
NANDAGOPAL GOUNDER AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
-"" 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Woman's Right to Property Act, 1937/Hindu Succession Act, c 
1956; s.14/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; s.100: 
Joint Hindu Family Property-Share of claimant, daughter of deceased 
a member of the joint family-Entitlement to-Held: She could not claim any 
right, title and interest in terms of 1937 Act, as a successor of a member of 
joint family unless joint status severed-Moreover, suit property being D 
agricultural property, 1931 Act not applicable-Statement furnished by a 
r 
relative of the claimant does not prove that father of claimant, before his 
-' 
death, intended to separate himself from other members-Property in question 
continued to be possessed as joint family property-Having regard lo nature 
of oral evidence adduced before it, trial Court came to the conclusion that 
the claimant failed to prove her case-Such a finding of trial Court could E 
not have been reversed by first appellate Court without assigning any 
sufficient and cogent reasons therefor as rightly held by the High Court-
Joint family property-Presumption of partition-Discussed. 
"t 
Respondent No. I and one 'K' were brothers and members of a Joint 
F 
;# 
Hindu family. 'K' was suffering from small pox, he died in the year 1943. 
Immediately prior to his death, he allegedly expressed his intention to severe 
his status as a member of the joint family. The wife of the deceased, mother 
of the present appellant and the appellant were admittedly looked after by the 
respondents. However, she left the family in or about 1945 and married another 
person. Appellant-daughter of the deceased was not only brought up by G 
Respondent No. 1, her Uncle, she was also given in marriage. She allegedly 
_.,.,,_ 
claimed a share in the property and possession of the respondents was sought 
to be disturbed. Respondents filed a declaratory suit and injunction against 
her in the Civil Court. Appellant's husband had also filed a suit claiming a 
903 
H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 2 S.C.R. 
A leasehold right in the said property. The Trial Court opined that 'K' died in 
the year 1943 as a member of undivided joint family and, thus, the appellant 
had derived no right, title and interest in the said property by succession or 
otherwise. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was allowed by 
the first appellate Court holding that her father died as a divided member of 
B 
the joint family as a result whereof she became entitled to claim half share in 
the property, The second appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed by 
the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that although she at the time of her father's death 
was only three years old, the factum of separation was proved by DW-2 - her 
c aunt; and thatthe father of the appellant and Respondent no. 1 having separated 
themselves, she succeeded to the share of her father. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The leg ii position that the appellant could not claim any right, 
D title and interest whether in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Women's 
Right to Property Act, 1937 or as a successor of her father, if the joint status 
was not severed, is not in dispute. !Para 12] 1908-8] 
1.2. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act was not applicable in 
E relation to agricultural land. The State made an amendment in that behalf in 
the year 1947 whereafter, only a widow became entitled to claim limited 
ownership in the sh~re of her husband. The mother of the appellant i.e. wife 
of 'K', thus, did not derive any right, title and interest in the property of her 
husband in the year 1943, when he expired. Furthermore, admittedly, she left 
the family and married another person in the year 1945 and thus the question 
F of her deriving any benefit in terms of the 1947 amendment also did not arise. 
[Para 12) [908-C-DI 
1.3. The first Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court 
relying only on or on the basis of the statement made by DW-2 - the aunt of 
the appellant. The said statement by itself does not prove that 'K' made an 
G unequivocal declaration that he intended to separate himself from his brother 
or the same was duly communicated to the other co-sharers. DW-2 did not 
say when such a declaration was made in presence of all coparceners. It was 
not stated that at the time of making such purported 

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