LexPOTTI LAKSHMI PERUMALLU versus POTTI KRISHNA VENAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
POITI LAKSHMI PERUMALLU v. POTfl KRISHNA VENAMMA August 13, 1964 (K. SUBBA RAo, N. R1UAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuoHOLKAll JJ.) llindu Womw's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (Act 18 of 1937)- /lusband member of joint family-Will by husband-Whether amo1U1U to separation--JVht:thc•r could be construed as family arrange1nen1-WiJow's itJterest-Dcterminafion-iYhethcr as on the d.11e of seeking partition or as on the date of death of husband. The respondent, widow of S, 1hc brother of the appellant, filed o suit claiming half ~hare in the entire propeny by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Women's Right to Properly Acl. After 1he death of S. his only son by his first wife died al 1he age of 11 yeaf3. The respondenl admit1ed thal S had purporled 10 exeeule a will before hi• death but contended that it was inofcrativc because he was a member of a Hindu joint family at 1he lime o his dea1h. The courts below found that 1he suit properties were the joint family properties of S and the appellant. that the will execuled by S was inoperative and not bindi"I' on the respondent and that she was cnti1Ied to half share in the swl properties. On appeal by special leave, 1he appellanl contended tbol ( 1) 1he will execuled by S it<elf rcsulled in a severance in the a1a1us of the two brothers consliluling lhe join1 family and 1ha1 in any event ocpa· ration en•ued between them at the death of S; (2) at any rate the will should be construed to be a family arrangemenl made by 1he Karla of the family and assented lo by the respondenl aad by the father and the foster-father of the respoadenl on her behalf. and ( 3) assuming thal neither of the two contentions ,~·ere correct, the interest to whioh the respomlenl would he Clllilled would he ilh share in the properly and not half share therein. this interest having to be a.~certaincd as on the date of the dea1h of S. HELD : chat the High Court rightly aega1hed all these contcnti-. (i) Nowhere in the will had S staled thal be wanlcd to pnt an end 10 1he coparcenary. Indeed, 1he very assertion therein-though it ba3 been concurrently found 10 be untrue-that the properly was not join! family property would preclude an inference that S inlcnded 10 CXl'fllS'! an intention to separate and put an end to a coparcenary which, accord- ing to thal asser1ion, in face did not exist. [30G-3 IA] A. Raghava1111na v. A. Che11cha1nn1a, (1964J 2 S.C.R. 933 referred to. (ii) A family arangement which is for lhe benefil of lhe family generally can be enforced in a court of law. Bm before the court would do so, it must be shown that there was an occasion for entering iato_ a family arrangemenl and ii was acletl upon. [31A-BJ (iii) According to the theory underlying the Hindu law the widow of a deceased Hindu is his surviving half and therefore as long u lb• is alive he must be deemed to continue to exist in her person. Thi! surviving half had, under the Hindu law lexts, no right to claim a parti- tion of 1he property of lhe family to which her husband belonged. Bnt .. the Act- of. 1937 has conferred thal righ1 upon ;,er. When the Act says that she wiU have the same right as her husband had, it cJcarJv mcen'I: that she would be entitled to be allotted the same shnrc ac; hr:- h11~ 1,and A B c • D •• G t II LAKSHMI \I, KRJSHNAVENAMMA (Mudholkar J.) 27 A would have been entitled to had he lived on the date on which she claimed partition. The interest devolving upon the widow need not necessarily be either by survivorship or by inheritance but could also be in a third way <I i.e., by statute ilnd where the interest is taken by her under a statute it would be of a kind provided by the statute itself. [34B-D; 37BJ Case law discussed. Jadaobai v. Puranmal, I.L.R. [1944] Nag. 832, and Natarajan Chettiar B v. P'Tumal Ammal, A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 246, disapproved. Siveshwar Prasad v. Lala Har Narain, I.LR. (1944) 23 Pat 760 and R•/•ndrabati v. Mungalal, I.L.R. (1952) 31 Pat. 477, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 519 of 1961. t Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 11, 1958, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No. 1142/1953. S. T. Desai and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the !IPpellant. G. Venkatarama Sastri and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the res- D pondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar J. This is an aP.peal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.