RATNAM CHETTIAR & ORS. versus S. M. KUPPUSWAMI CHETTIAR & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 18-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
86_3 
RATNAM CHETTIAR & ORS. 
v. 
S. M. KUPPUSWAMI CHETTIAR & ORS. 
September 18, 1975 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER IAND S. MuRTAZA FAZAL AU. JJ .] 
B-
Hindu Law-Partition-Vr'hen may be reopened-1'1inor coparciners-1¥hen 
partition binding on them. 
! 
(1) A partition effected between the members of an Hindu Undivided 
+ 
Family by their own volition and with their consent cannot be reopened unless 
it is shown that it was obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue 
influence. 
In such a case, the Court should require 
:.t~:ct proof of facts, 
be~ 
cause, an act inter vivos cannot be lightly set- aside. 
C 
(2) When the partition is effected between the members of the Hlmiu 
.D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Undivided Family which consists of minor coparceners, it is binding on the 
minors also, if it is done in good faith and in a bona fide manner keeping- into 
account the interestsi of the m·:nors. 
(3) But if th~ partition is proved to be unjust and unfa:r and is detrimen-
tal to the interests of the minors. the partition can be reopened aLer any length 
of time. In such a case, it is the duty of the Court to protect and safeguard 
the interests of the minors and the onus of proof that the partition was just 
and fair iy on the party supporting the partition. 
(4) Where th'ere is a partition of immovable and movable propertie.s, but 
the two transactions are distinct and separable, or have taken place at different 
times, If it is found that only one of these transactions is unjust and unfair, 
it is open to the Court to maintain the transaction which is just and fair and 
to reopen the partition that i• unjust and unfair. [873D-874B] 
In 1940, two brothers. defendants 1 and 5 partitioned their movable and 
immovable properties by two separate transactions. At that ti'me defendant 5 
had two sons who were minors. They and their minor brothers filed a suit 
ia 1952 for cancellation of the partition and for re-opening it on the ground 
that ~ partition was unjust and unfair and had tDe effect of depriving the 
minors of their legal shar~s in the properties. The trial court passed a preli-1 
minary decree for re-partition of the movable properties as 
it was ex .. facie 
unjust and unfair and directed appointment of the Commissioner to go into 
t])e valuation of the asllets sought to be partitioned while holding that the partition 
of immovable properties was neither unjust nor unfair. In appeal, the High 
Court agreed with the :firulin~! of the trial court but set aside the directi'on of 
the trial court for the appointment. of Comm.issionei; quantified the value of 
the disparity in the share of the plaintiffs and passed a decree to the extent 
of 2/5th share of Rs. 17,700. 
In appeal to this Court, passing a decree for 
a sum of Rs. 46,500/. with future' interest in modification of the Hieh Court's 
decree, 
HELD : (1) The division of immovable propertie~ was just. fair and equal. 
The properties were not actually valued according to the market rate and only 
a notional valuation had been given in the partition deed; but, in view of the 
detailed examination by the two courts of the facts regarding capitalised value 
of the properties allotted to the two brothers, it could not be said that tho parti-
tion of the immovable properties was either unfair or unjust. This Court will 
not inte.rfere with concurrent :findings of the fact given by the court~ below 
in the abscllC\l of any extraordinary or special reasons. 
[868E-F; 86?B-C] 
2(a) But a perusal Of the 11ehedules to the partition deed relating to movable 
properties shows an ex-facie disparity of about Rs. 10,000. [874B] 
(b) Further, the evidence disclosed that a sum of Rs. 55,000 with defend-
ant 1, was agreed upon .between the brothers to be divided later. but 
this 
7-1127 SCl/75 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] I s.c.R. 
amount was not .included in the partition deed. 
Assuming that defendant 5 
A. 
h~d not. taken al"!y objection, since the amount was very large, his silence or 
his: acquiescence rn allowing his elder brother to swallow the amount was not 
a prudent act and has caused seriou<;i detriment to the interests of the-- minors 
which he had to protect because. he and his minor sons were members of an 
Hindu Undivided Family. 
[870H-871B] 
(c) Taking these two sums into account and calculating the 
plaintiffs 
share in 1940 and adding interest thereon till date of decree, the plaintiffs 
would be entitled to Rs. 46.500. 
[874D-EJ 
B 
(d) The High Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.