MALLESAPPA BANDEPP A DESAI AND OTHERS versus DESAI MALLAPPA AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 09-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR

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

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREi\IE COURT REPORTS 
779 
MALLESAPP A BAN DEPP A DESAI AND OTHERS 
v. 
DESAI MALLAPPA AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GA.TENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Hindu Law-Doctrine of blending-If applies fv property held 
by female in limited riRht. 
The rule of blending in Hindu Law as ernlved by judicial 
decisions can have no application to a property held by a Hindu 
female as a limited owner. That rule p0stulates a coparcener 
deliberately and intentionally throwing his independently ac-
quired property into the joint family stock so as to form a part 
of it. 
Although it is unnecessary now to investigate whether there 
is any other text on which that rule could be founded, it is quite 
clear that the text of Yagnavalkya in a different context and 
the commentary thereupon by Vijnyaneshwara, relied on by the 
Privy Council in this connection, can have no relation to the said 
rule. 
Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi (1932) L.R. 
59 I.A. 331, disapproved. 
Rajanikanta Pal v. ]aga Mohan Pal (1923) L.R. 50 I.A. 173, 
relied on. 
· 
Consequently, where in a partition suit certain immovable 
properties acquired by a Hindu female from her father as a 
limited owner were claimed to form part of the joint family pro-
perty of her husband by virtueof the said rule : 
Held, that the claim must fail. 
Held, further, that a Hindu female owning a limited estate 
cannot circumvent the rules of surrender and allow the-members 
of her husband's family to treat her limited estate as part of the 
joint family property of her husband. 
Before the said rule can be invoked, it must be shown that 
the owner wanted to extinguish his title to the property in 
question and impress upon it the character of joint family 
property. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
263 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Janu-
ary 6, 1953, of the Madras High Court in A. S. Appeal 
No. 7 of 1949. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney.General of Jndia and Naunit 
Lal, for the appellants, 
100 
z96r 
February 9. 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and B. K. B. Naidu, for 
Mallesappa 
respondent No. 1. 
Bandeppa Desai 
M. R. K. Pillai, for respondent No. 2. 
v. 
Desai Mallappa 
1961. February 9. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Gajendragadkar J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.--This appeal has been brought 
to this Court with a certificate granted by the_ 
Madras High Court and it arises from a suit filed 
by the ::Lppellants l\fallesappa and Chenna Basappa 
::1gainst their uncle Mallappa, respondent 1 and grnnd-
unck Honnappn., respondent 2, for partition. Accord-
ing to the plaint, the family of the appellants and 
respondent 1 was an undivir!ed Hindu family until 
the d111 e of the suit, and respondent I was its manager. 
Tbn ~inccstor of thn family was Desai M,.,,Jiappa. 
He 
h:i,d three sons, Kari l{amappa who died in 1933, 
Virupalrnhapp::L who <lied long ago and Honn11ppa, 
respomlent 2. 
Kari Ramappa had four sons Guru-
shantappa (dierl 1913), Bandappa(died 1931),Mallappa 
(respondent I) anrl Veerabhadrappa (died 1927). 
Guruslrnntappa nrnrried 
Parvat!?.amma; the two 
appellants are the sons of Bandappa, their mothPr 
being Neclarnrna. 
They were born in 1926 11nd 1921! 
respectively. Their case was that respondent I who 
has been the manager of the family for many years 
has been trying to deprive them of their legitimate 
share in the property and refused their request for 
partition, and so they had to file the present suit. 
According to them, in the property of the family they 
and respondent I were en tit.led to half share each: To 
the plaint were attached the schedules describing the 
several items of property. 
Schedule A consisted of 
items I to 163 which included hous0s and lands at 
Jonnagiri. Schedule B described the movables while 
Schedule C included items 1 to 35 all of which h"'d 
been acquired by the family under a document Ex. B-32. 
It is in respect of all these properties that the appel-
lants claimed their half share and'Mked for a partition 
in that 'behalf. 
This claim was resisted by respondent I principally 
on the ground that in 1929 Ra.ma.ppa, ·the father of 
3 j3.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
7Sl 
respondent 1 and the grandfather of the appellants 
r96r 
had effected a partition of the joint family properties 
Mallesappa 
between respondent 1 and his elder brother Bandappa Bandeppa Desai 
who is the appellants' father. That is how, according 
v. 
to r

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