M. ARUMUGAM versus AMMANIAMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
M. ARUMUGAM
v.
AMMANIAMMAL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8642 of 2009)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.4(b), 6, 8, 19 & 30 –  Joint
family – Role of Karta vis-a-vis minor members – Defendant nos.1
& 2 formed coparcenary, with their father, which owned the suit
property – Father died intestate – 1/3 of the property went to each
son and remaining one third which was the share of the father in
the coparcenary was to be inherited by defendant no.5 (wife),
defendant nos.1 & 2 and three daughters viz. the plaintiff (youngest
daughter) and defendant nos.3 & 4 – Plaintiff filed suit claiming
that the property falling to the share of the father be partitioned –
Defendant nos.1 & 2 inter alia stated that the plaintiff (minor at that
time was represented by defendant no.5), defendant nos.3-5 jointly
executed registered release deed relinquishing rights in the property
in their favour and later, a registered partition deed was executed
between defendant nos.1 & 2 and thereafter they have been in
possession of the property – Suit dismissed – High Court decreed
the suit – On appeal, held: After the death of the father, his interest
in the coparcenary property would devolve as per the provisions of
s.8 of the Succession Act since he left behind a number of female
Class-I heirs – Further, conjoint reading of s.30 with s.19 clearly
indicates that the property was not to be treated as a joint family
property though it may be held jointly by the legal heirs as tenants
in common till the property is divided, apportioned or dealt with in
a family settlement – Even assuming that the property was a joint
family property then also the submission of the plaitniff cannot be
accepted that the Karta i.e. defendant no.1 was the natural guardian
of the minor plaintiff – Karta is the manager of the joint family
property – He is not the guardian of the minor members of the joint
family – When a family settlement is taking place between the
members of the joint family and some of the members relinquish
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 41
41
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
their share in favour of the Karta, the Karta cannot act as the
guardian of that minor whose share is being relinquished in favour
of the Karta – There would be conflict of interest – In such an
eventuality it would be the mother alone who would be the natural
guardian and, therefore, the document executed by her cannot be
said to be void – At best, it was a voidable document in terms of s.8
of the Guardianship Act and should have been challenged within
three years of the plaintiff attaining majority – Further, in the
circumstances of the present case it is difficult to believe that the
plaintiff was not aware of the various transfers – Judgment of the
High Court set aside and that of the trial court, restored – Hindu
Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – ss.6, 8 – Family Law.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.30 – Held: s.30 clearly lays
down that any Hindu can dispose of his share of the property by
Will or by any other testamentary disposition which is capable of
being so disposed of by him – Explanation to s.30 provides that the
interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary shall be deemed
to be property capable of being disposed of by him within the
meaning of s.30 – This means that the law makers intended that for
all intents and purposes the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara
coparcenary was to be virtually like his self-acquired property –
Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – ss.6, 8.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Proviso to s.6 – Object of –
Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The opening portion of Section 6, Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 as it stood at the relevant time, clearly
indicates that if male descendants were the only survivors then
they would automatically have the rights or interest in the
coparcenary property.  Females had no right in the coparcenary
property at that time. It was to protect the rights of the women
that the proviso clearly stated that if there is a Class-I female
heir, the interest of the deceased would devolve as per the
provisions of the Act and not by survivorship. The first
Explanation to Section 6 makes it absolutely clear that the interest
of the Hindu coparcener shall be deemed to be his share in the
property which would have been allotted to him if partition had
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
taken place immediately before his death.  In the pr

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