LexLAKKIREDDI CHINNA VENKATA REDDI versus LAKKIREDDI LAKSHMANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963
M<1.ngtas Tta FJlt.tt
v.
lls H'orkmm
Hi44yoM/ah J.
/963
M•rrn 4
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
I
to interfere with the conculsion of the Trihunal.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dis·
missed with costs.
A ppP.<Jl dismiMrd.
LAKKIREDDI CHIN:'>:A VEl\KATA REDDI
v.
LAKKIREDDI LAKSHMAl\fA
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAR and
j. C. SHAH jj.)
Hindu Law~loinr family prop<rly-i'artirion-lligld of
niinor-,)l't'f',ranct of joint property-Su.it for ]Xlrlitinn by 111inor if
can be con.Jini£ed a/kr hi8 dfath-Sej><r-TfJte or
self·ar"luirc<l pro-
perty, when impru.ed wilh rhe charact.r of joinl family prop<,.ty.
Butchi Tirupati was a member of a Hindu co-parcenary
consisting of himself, his five l>rothcrs and his son P11Ila Reddy.
After llutchi Tripati's death in 1947, Pulla Reddy, his sou and
Lakshmaina, his wido,v, filed a st1it for partition and separate
possession of their share in the properly of the joint family
an<l a fourth share in certain property
devised under a \VilJ
executed by \'en<'1ta Konda
Reddy in July, 1910.
l'ulla
Reddy was then a minor and his in.other acted as his nex"
friend. Pulla Reddy died during the pendency of the suit and
his mother \Va~ shown ln the record as his legal representative
for the suit.
The suit v:as contested on the gro11nd that it
was highly µrejudicial to the interest of P11lla Redciy to hAV(' his
share separatt!d from the joint f;unily '"-,tale. It WA-'i also denied
that Pulla Reddy aoJd ht• mother had been driven away from
the family house.
·
The trial court holrl th;ll part1t1on of the joint family
property was for the benefit of the minor P11lla Reddy and tho
High Court affirmed that view. Two questions raised before
the Supreme Court were whether the suit for partition of jollii
..
.
.
2 S.C.R .
SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS
i73
family property could, after the death of the minor, Pulla
Reddy, be continued by his mot!..er and whe_ther the property
devised uuder the will of Venkata Konda Reddy in favour
of <lcfe11dants l, 2, 5 and Butchi Tiruµati had, because of
blending with their joint family estate, been impressed with the
character of joint family property.
Held, that the suit for partition of the joint family
property could, after the death of the minor, he continued by
his mother. Action by the minor for a decree for partition
and separate possession of his share in the family property
was not founded on a cause of action personal to him. The
right claimed was in property and devolved on his death even
during minority upon his legal representative. The effect of
!he decision of the Court granting a decree for partition in a
suit instituted by a minor was not to create a new right which
the minor did not possess but merely to recognise the right
which accrued to him when the action was commenced. It
is the institution of the suit, subject to the decision of the
Court and not the decree of the Court that brings about the
severance. A suit filed on behalf of a Hindu minor for partition
of a joint family property does not, on the death of the minor
during the pendency of the suit abate and may be continued
by his legal representative and decree obtained therein if
the Court holds that the institution of the suit was for the
benefit of the minor.
Held, also, that there was no evidence on the record to
•how that by any conscious act or exercise of volition, Butchi
Tirupati surrendered his interest in the property devised in his
favour under the will of Venkata Konda Reddy so as to
blend it with the joint family property. Lakshmama, mother
of the minor, was entitled to a fourth share in the property.
Property separate or self-acquired of a member of a joint
Hindu family may be impre,.ed wiih the character of joint
family property if it is voluatarily thrown by the owner into
the common stock with the intention of abandoning his
/963
Lakkire.ddi
ChinAO
JI mhttJ Retllli
v.
lakJWuldi
Laks/amarnD
1963
lokkfrttldi ChirUla
Vtn..Wla Rtddi
v.
laUir1dtli
l..slcshmoma
SnaA /,
·174 sUPREMtcouR.tR.ti>oR.ts[i!l64J \!oL
separate clain1 therein.
To establish such abaudonmenf, a
clear intention to waive separate right must be established.
From the 1n<:Tc fact that other members of the farnily were
allowed to use the property jointly with himself or that the
income of the separate property was utilised out of generosity
to support persons whom the holder was not bound to suppExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.