MADANAGOPAL versus P.K.A. RAMACHANDRA MUDALIAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 18-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MADANAGOPAL 
A 
v. 
/• 
P.K.A. RAMACHANDRA MUDALIAR (DEAD) 
BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 18, 1995 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
---l.;c. 
Hindu Law: Joint family propertie~laim that the properties were not 
joint family properties and the brothers were carrying on independent busi-
nes~ompromise anived at-Son of one of the brothers claiming partition c 
after a long gap-Held: Not entitled to. 
The appellants' father J, and J's brothers R and S are descendants 
of common ancestor A. S filed a suit for partition of a share in the joint 
family properties, ag.linst bis brother, who pleaded In their written state· 
D 
m.ent that they were not members of the joint family and the properties 
did not belong to joint family. However; a. compromise was arrived at and 
S received a sum of Rs. 1350 and walked out. 
Subsequently the appellant's parents fell out and appellant and his 
sister started living with their mother. Appellant filed a suit for partition E 
and claimed V4th share of the properties on the plel,l that they were joint 
family properties. His uncle R filed· a suit for Injunction. Trial Court 
decreed the suit of the appellant and dismissed the suit filed by R. On 
appeal by R, the Division Bench reversed the trial Court's order. Hence 
these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. Even before the birth of the appellant, the stand that 
some of the properties did not belong to the joint family wus taken by 
appellant's father and. uncle. It Is too credulous to believe that the plea 
was raised with a view to defeat the rights of the appellant or of the other 
uncle of the app~llant. [ 449-D] 
· · 
G 
' < 
2. Items 3 and 4 of the suit properties have, however, been found by 
~ 
the High Court to belong io the joint family .. The appellant would be 
_,,,.,, 
entitled to a share therein as given by the trial court. The Injunction does· 
not operate in that respect. [ 449-E] 
H 
447 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2134-35 
of 1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated lO.J.78 of the Madras High 
Col!rt in Appeals Nos. 626/70 & 616 of 1973. 
B 
K.K. Mani for the Appellant. 
M. Raghuraman (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
C 
These appeals by special leave arise from the common judgment of 
the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Appeal Nos. 626170 
and 616/73, dated January 10, 1978. The appellant is the son of Jayarama 
Mudaliar. Arunachala Mudaliar is the common ancestor, namely, his 
grandfather, Ramachandra Mudaliar, the appellant's father Jayarama and 
D his uncle Shanmuga Mudaliar are sons of Arunachala Mudaliar. No doubt 
they are members of trading family. But as early as 1947, Shanmuga 
Mudaliar, one of the brothers filed a suit (O.S. No. 118/47) for partition of 
a share in the joint family properties against Ramachandra Mudaliar and 
Jayarama Mudaliar. Therein, Ramachandra Mudaliar and Jayarama 
E 
Mudaliar - the latter being father of the appellant, filed written statement 
pleading that they are not members of the joint family and that the 
properties mentioned in that suit do not belong to joint family. However, 
at a compromise between them, Shanmuga Mudaliar had received a sum 
of Rs. 1,350 and walked out. 
F 
In 1953 the mother of the appellant Radha Ammal and Jayarama 
.:.,_ 
Mudaliar fell out and the appellant and his sister started living with their 
mother. In 1965, the appellant filed a suit (OS 106/65) for partition of the 
properties and allotment of 1/4 share on the plea that the properties 
mentioned in the plaint are of the joint family properties and he is entitled 
to 1/4 share therein. His uncle Ramachandra Mudaliar filed another suit 
G (OS No. 96/64) for injunction. The trial court decreed the suit of the. 
appellant and dismissed the suit of Ramachandra Mudaliar. Dissatisfied 
therewith, Ramachandra Mudaliar, the first respondent, carried the matter 
( 
~\..
in appeal to the Division Bench, who reversed the decree of the trial court, 
dismissed the suit of the appellant and decreed the suit of the respondent. 
H Thus these appeals, by special leave. 
MADANAGOPAL v. P.K.A.RAMACHANDRAMUDALIAR 
449 
The principal contention raised by Shri K.K. Mani, learned counsel A 
for the appellant, is that since the trial court has found that the properties 
./ 
belonged to the joint family and Jayarama Mudaliar and Ramachandra 
~ 
Mudaliar being the member
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.