GUMMANNA SHETTY & ORS versus NAGA VENIAMMA

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 04-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GUMMANNA SHETTY & ORS. 
A 
v. 
NAGA VENIAMMA 
May 4, 1967 
IR. S. BACHAWAT, J, M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Madras Aliyasanthana Act (9 of 1949), s. 3(6)-Scope of. 
By a registered deed dated September 4, 1900, a group of 19 per-
~ons forming a joint family with community of property governed by 
1he Aliyasanthana law of inheritance, 
formed 
themselves 
into 
two 
branches not according to natural Kavarus, but into artificial branches and 
<livided the family prol?erties. 
In 1953, the members of one of these 
C 
two artificial branches xnstitutecl a suit against the sole surviving mem~ 
ber of the other branch who was a 11issanthathi kavaru, for partition of 
all the properties comprised in the deed of 1900, allegation that tho deed 
only effected a division for convenience of enjoyment and not an out-
right partition. 
On the question whether under s. 36(6) of the Madras Aliyasanthana 
Act, 1949, the deed of 1900 should be deemed to have effected a parti-
D 
tion of the properties, 
HELD : The deed on its true construction, did not ·zffect an out-right 
partition nor could it be deemed to be a deed of partition under s. 36(6) 
of the Act, because, the kutumba ·was split into two artificial groups and 
not according to the kavarus. 
[937C-DJ 
One of the four conditions necessary as a pre-requisite for the appli· 
E 
cation of the section is that the distribution of properties is among all 
the kavarus of the kutumba for their separate and absolute enjoyment 
in perpetuity. 
That is, the sub-section applies to a family 
settlement 
.under which the ku111mba is split up according to kavarus as defined in 
s. 3(b) of the Act, and the kutumba properties distributed among ·such 
kal'arus. 
[936F-G; 937B-C'] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRrsmcnoN: Civil Appeal No. 910 of 
F 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 28, 1961 
·of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. (M) 70 o( 
1956. 
V. K. Krishna Menon, M. Veerappa, Sreedharan Nambiar, 
G 
D .. P. Singh and H. K. Puri, for the appellants. 
S. T. Desai, R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for thi? 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. 
By a registered deed dated September 4, 1900. 
H 
a group of 19 persons forming a joint family with community 
of property governed by the Aliyasanthana Law of inheritance, 
formed themselves into two branches and divided the famiiy pro· 
SHETTY V. NAGAVENIAMMA (Bachawat, !.) 
933 
perties. 
The second branch consisted of the descendants of Sara-
samma and Brahmi and some descendants of Nemakka-in all 
IO persons. 
The first branch consisted of Nemakka and 
the 
r~st of her descendants and her sister Sivadevi-in all 9 persons. 
t In 1953, Darnamma was the sole surviving member of the second 
' 
branch. 
She was a nissanthathi kavaru, 70 years old having 
no descendants. In 1953, the members of the first branch insti-
tuted a suit against Darnamma for partition of all the properties 
comprised in the deed dated September 4, 1900, alleging that 
the deed effected a division for convenience of enjoyment and 
maintenance only and was not an absolute or out-right partition 
The defence of Darnamma was that the deed effected an out-
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
right partition. 
The trial court accepted the plaintiff's contention 
and passed a preliminary decree for partition. Darnamma filed 
an appeal in the Mysore High Court. During the pendency of 
the appeal she died and one Nagaveniamma claiming under her 
will was substituted in her place as her legal reprt15entative. 
The 
High Court held that the deed dated September 4, 1900, effected 
an out-right partition. On this finding, the High Court allowed 
the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dis-
missed the suit. 
From this decree the present appeal has been 
filed under a certificate granted by the High Court. 
The joint family properties were formerly managed by its 
yajaman, one Manjappa. 
Upon his death, the parties to the deed 
dated September 4, 1900, apprehended disputes. 
The object of 
the deed was to prevent such disputes, and consequential wastage 
of property and to preserve the dignity of the family. 
The family 
properties were divided into two parts, and a portion was allotted 
to each branch. 
The deed provided that the properties allotted 
to the first branch would be enjoyed by its members and would 
be mutated in Nemakka's name, and Siddappa, a member of this 
branch, would manage the properties, pay the 

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