LexN. ARUNAOHALA MUDALIAR versus C. A. MURUGANATHA MUDALIAR, AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I J ' S.C.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 0. N. ARUNAOHALA MUDALIAR v. O. A. MURUGANATHA MUDALIAR, AND ANOTHER. MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHER.JEA and JAGANNADHADAS ,JJ. 243 Hind1t law-Gift-Property gifted by father to son-Whether a.1westral property in. the hands of son-Construction of will- Presu1nptions. Property gifted by a father to his son could not become ancestral property in the hands of the.son simply by reason of the fact that he got it from his father. The father is quite competent when he makes a gift, to provide expressly either that the donee would take it exclusively for himself or that the gift would be for the benefit of his branch of the family, and if there are express provisions to that effect in the deed of gift or will, the interest which the son would take in such property would depend on the terms of the grant. If there are no clear words describing the kind of interest which the donee is to take, the question would be one of construc- tion and the court would have to collect the intention of the donor from the language of the document taken along with the surrounding circumstances in accordanc~. with- the established canons of construction. The material question in such cases would be whether the grantor really wanted to make a gift of the pro- perties to his son or the apparent gift was only an integral part of a scheme to partition the same. There is no presumption that he intended either the one or the other, as it is open to the father to make a gift or partition his properties as he himself chooses. Muddim v. Ram (6 W.R. 71), Nagalingam v. Ramachandra (I.L.R. 24 Mad. 429), Bhagwat v. Mst. Kaporni (I.L.R. 23 Pat. 599), Jugmohan Das v. Mangal Das (I.L.R. 10 Born. 528), Parsottam v. J'ankibai (I.L.R. 29 All. 354), A'!narnath v. Guran (A.LR. 1918 Lah. 394), Lal Ra'ln Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Partabgarh (64 I.A. 265) referred to. Where a testator who had 3 sons, after giving certain pro- perties to his wife and other relations, provided that the properties in Schedules A, B and C of the will which were his self-acquired . properties shall be taken by his eldest, second and third son res- pectively, and that the sons shall enjoy the properties allotted to them with absolute rights and with powers of alienation such as --4. gift, exchange, sale etc. from son to grandson hereditarily: 33 1953 Oct.14, • 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] 1968 Held, that as the will expressly vested the sons with absolute rights with lull powers of alienation, the property bequeathed to '0. N. Arunachala them '\\'as not ancestral property in their hands vis rt vis their own • Mudaliar male issue, v. O.A.Muruga. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal natha Mudaliar No. 191 of 1952. and Another. Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on the 21st May, 1951, from the Judgment and Decree dated the 13th December, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Rao and Somasundaram JJ.) in Appeal No. 529of1946 arising out of the Judg- ment and Decree dated the 20th February, 1946, of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 138 of 1945. P. Somasunda.ram (R. Gan.apathy Iyer, with him) for the appellant. B. Soma.yya(K. R. Chowdhury, with him) for respond- ent No. 1. 1953. October 14. The ,fodgment of the Conrt was delivered by MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated December 13, 1949, affirming, with slight modi- fication, those of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1945. The suit was commenced by the plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal for specific allotment, on partition, of his one-third share in the properties described in the plaint, on the allegation that they were the joint properties of a family consisting of himself, his father, the defendant No. 1, and his brother, the defendant No. 2, and that he was entitled in law to one-third share in the same. It appears that the plaintiff and defendan~ No. 2, who ·are two brothers, are both sons of defendant No. 1 by his first wife who predeceased her husband. After the death of plaintiff's mother, the defendant No. 1 married again and his second wife is defendant No. 3 in the I ' 8.C.R. ' • • . " '; ! • . - - ' ~ ! . SUPH,EME COURT REPORTS 245 . b 1953 suit. The allegatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.