KAKUMANU PEDA SUBBAYYA AND ANOTHER versus KAKUMANU AKKAMMA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1249 · Decided: 04-09-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
KAKUM~NU PEDA SUBBAYYA AND 
ANOTHHR 
v. 
1249 
KAKUMANU AKKAMMA AND ANOTHER 
. 
• 
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
A. K .. SARKAR JJ.) 
Hindu Law-Partition-Suit for partition on behalf of minor 
-Severance of joint status-Death of minor pending suit-Abate-
ment-Right of legal representative to continue suit. 
In a suit instituted on behalf of a Hindu minor for partition 
of the joint family properties, the minor plaintiff died during 
the pendency of the suit and his mother as the legal representa-
tive was allowed to continue the suit as the second plaintiff, and 
th~ suit was decreed as it was found that the defendants had 
been acting against the interests of the minor and that the suit 
for partition was therefore beneficial to him. It was contended 
for the appellants that the suit had abated by reason of the 
death of the minor before the suit was heard and before the 
Court could decide whether the institution of the suit was for 
his. benefit. 
• 
Held, that wheu a suit is instituted by a person acting on 
behalf of a minor for the partition of the joint family properties, 
a declaration made by him on behaJf of the minor to become 
divided brings about a severance in status, subject only to the 
decision of the Court that the action is beneficial to the minor. 
The true effect of the decision of the Court is not• to create in 
the minor a right which he did not possess before but to recognise 
the right which had accrued to him when the action was insti-
tuted. 
Rangasayi v. Nagarathnamma, (1933) I. L. R. 57 Mad. 95, 
Ramsingh v.Fakira, I. L. R. [1939] Born. 256 and Mandliprasad 
v. Ramcharan/al, I.L.R. [1947] Nag. 848, approved. 
Case• law reviewed. 
Accordingly, the suit did not abate and the legal represen-
tative was entitled to continue-the suit and obtain a decree on 
showing that when the suit was instituted it was for the benefit 
of the minor. 
Helg, further, that the suit did not abate on the ground 
either that the cause of action for a suit for partition by a minor 
was one personal to him, because such a suit is .one relating to 
property. 
• 
• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
326 of 1955. 
' 
• 
September 4. 
• 
Ped<1;icbb11;ya 
v. 
A k/<1Htl1lll1 
V n1/:alarao1a 
Ai)·ar _f. 
• 
• 
1250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959) 
Appeal by special leil\'e from the• judgment and 
decree dated April IO, i95:1, of the :lladras High Court 
in Second Appeal No. 18lii of 1949, arising out of the 
judgmeut and decree dated ,January 28, llJ49, of the 
Court of Subordinate .Juuge, Bapatla, in A. S. Xo. 188 
of 1g47, against the judgment and decree •dated 
December 23, llJ46, of the District :llunsif, Ongole, iu 
0. S. Ko. 139 of 1946. 
ill. C. Setali-ad, 
Attorney-General for India and 
R. Grrnapathy Aiyar, for the appellants. 
A. V. Visu:anatha Sastri, M. R. Rangaswanii Aiyan-
gar, 1'. S. Venkatararnan and K. R. Clwu.dhury, for the 
respondents. 
1958. 
September 4. 
The .Judgment of the Co11rt. 
was delivered by 
VF.::\KA'l'ARA~IA AIYAR J.-;A'his appeal ari.qcs out 
of a suit for partition of joint family properties irn,ti-
tuted on April 2, 1942, in the Court. of the District 
l\[unsif, Ongole, on behalf of one Kakum~nu Haman11a, 
a minor of the age of about 2t years by his maternal • 
grandfather, Rangayya, as his next friend. 
The first 
defendant is his father .• The second and third <lefo11-
dants arc the sons of the tirst clefenclant bv his cleceas-
ed first wif<;. 
The fourth defendant is the second wife 
of the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff. 
The fifth defendant is the daugther of the first defen-
dant bv the fourth defendant. 
Ln tLe plaint., three grouncb were put fonrnrd as to 
1 why the minor plaintiff should have partiti<in l (1) It 
was said th:tt the mother of the plaintiff was ill-treat-
ed, ancl there was neglect to maintain her n.nd hei· 
children. Both the District lllunsif and the Subordi-
1uttB ,Judge on appeal, held that this had not been 
established, and no further notice need be taken of it. 
(2) It wits then said that there had been a sale of the 
family properties to one Akkul Venkatasubba. RL><l<li 
for Hs. 2,300, that there was no necessity for that 
sale, ancl tbat its object was only to injure the plaintiff. 
That sale is dated )fay 9, 1939. 
(3) Lastly, it w1~s 
• alleged that item 2 had been purchased Oil June 1, 
. 1938, and item B on J u~e 14, 1939, 
witH.~ joint family 
• 
• 
'· 
• 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPRE

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