PUTTARANGAMMA & 2 ORS. versus M. S. RANGANNA & 3 ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 08-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
c 
D 
r 
F 
G 
H 
PUTI'ARANGAMMA & 2 ORS. 
v. 
M. S. RANGANNA & 3 ORS. 
February 8, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Joint family-Unilateral decalration to separate-Com-
municated to other members of family-Declaration withdrawn-Efiect. 
The karta of a joint Hindu family fell ill. He had no male issue and 
in order to safeguard the interests of the appellant and fourth respondent, 
who were his daughters, he issued regfat.:ered notices to the other mem-
ber. of the jont family declaring his unequivocal intention to separate 
from them. Later, he decided to withdraw the llDtices and instructed 
the poolal authorities not to forward them, but,. the unequivocal decla-
ration of his intention to separate was conveyed to the other members 
of the joint family and they had full knowl«lge of such intention. 
A 
few days thereafter he instituted a suit for partition and possession of 
his share of the property. The plaint was prepared by a responsible 
advocate, who explained the contents to the plaintiff (the karta), who 
was conscious and in full possession of his mental faculties, had his thumb 
impression affixed on the plaint and Vakalatnama. signed them both and 
had thdm filed in court. 
After the suit was filed. on the same day, the 
plaintiff died. 
. 
The trial court decreed .l!he suit, but the High Oourt, in appeal, re-
versed tho decree. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The mere withdrawal of the plaintiff's unilateral declara-
tion _of intention to sq>arate, which already bad resulted in hls division 
in ·status because of the communication of the intention to the other mem-
bers, did llDt nullify its effect so as to restore the family to its original 
joint status, or amount to an agreem~nt to reunite; and lthe appellant and 
the fourth respondent, as the legal representatives of the plaintiff, were 
entitled to the decree. (126 G-H; 127 A-B; 129 DJ 
Radlwkrishna v. Satyanarayana, (1948) 2 M.L.J. 331, approved. 
CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 322 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 5; 
1960 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 
1956. 
A. K. Sen and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the aJ>Pellants. 
H. R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhri; 
for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J, This appeal is brought by certificate from the 
judgment of the Mysore High Court dated December 5, 1960 in 
R. A. No. 81 of 1956. 
120 
SUPlll!Ml! COUllT IU!POl.TS 
(1968) 3 S.C.R. 
The appellants and respondent No. 4 are the daughters and 
legal representatives of Savoy Rauganna who was the plaintiff in 
O.S. 34 of 1950-51 instituted in the court of the District Judge, 
Mysore. The suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff for partition 
of his share in the 11roperties mentioned in the schedule to the 
plaint and for granting him separate possession of the same. 
Respondent No. 1 is the brother's son of the Plaintiff. The rela· 
B 
tionship of the parties would awear from the following pedigree : 
R..i I AlaJnma (Deft. 2) 
(Died 45 
I 
. 
years ""') 
Dodd& il.,.pmma 
(Deft. 2 (a) 
I 
I 
Kenchanna (Suppl. 
Def). 
I 
Savoy Ranganna (S" 
I 
Savoy Ranpnna 
(plaintiff) 
Chikka l.Ran1•tnma 
Puita il.n..mma 
(Deft. 3) 
(!st L. R. of 
plaintiff) 
(2nd L. R. of 
plaintiff) 
I 
ChillaRa-
(Diod in 1947\ 
I 
M. S. R. Ranpnna, 3 
(Deft. I) 
lakkamma 
(D. W.10) 
Chinnathayamma 
(3rd I. p •. of 
plaintiff) 
c 
E 
The case of the plaintjlf was that he and the defendants livea 
together as members of a Joint Hindu family till January 7, 1951, 
plaintiff being the karta. The plaintiff had no male issue but had 
only four daughters, Chikka Rangamma, Putta Rangamma, 
Rangathayamml! . l!Jld Chinnathay;unma. 
The first 2 daughters 
r 
were widows. The fourth daughter Chinnathayamma was living 
with her husband. Except Chinnathayamma, the other daughters 
with their families had been living with the joint family. 
The 
plaintiff became ill and entered 'Sharda Nursing Home' for treat· 
ment as an in-patient on January 4, 1951. In order to safeguard 
the interests of his daughters the plaintiff, Savoy Ranianna issued 
G 
a notice on January 8, 1951 to the defend:mts ~cl~ring his un-
equivocal intention to separate from them. 
After the notices were 
registered at the post office certain well-wishers of die famify inter-
vened and wanted to bring about a settlement. On their advice 
and request the plaintiff n_otified to the post 

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