LexS. SHANMUGAM PILLAI AND ORS. versus K. SHANMUGAM PILLAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.570 S. SHANMUGAM PILLAI AND ORS. v. K. SHANMUGAM PILLAI AND ORS. May 4, 1972 [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J Hindu Law;___Widow's estate-Family arrangement-,lUenation ,by widow-When reversioners precluded from challenging alienation-Chari- table Trust-Tests for determining whether dedication coniplete or partial: The last male-h6lder endowed some of his properties for a charity the management of which was hereditary. His widows alienated the proper- ties inherited by them including the properties endowed. The appellants, as reversioners, filed a suit for 'setting aside the alienations and claiming the enoowed properties as 'huqdars'. The High Court! dismissed the suit. HEID, dismissing the appeal, that the appellants were precluded from questioning the alienations of the properties. (i) Equitable principles such as estoppel, election and family settle- ment are not mere technical rules of evidence. They have an important pµrpose to serve in the administration of justice and their scope should not be narrowed down. An alienation by a Hindu widow is voidable and not void. A rever- sioner to the estate of a deceased separated Hindu, who has expressly assented to an alienation of property forming part of the estate, made by the widow in possession, cannot on succeeding to the estate after the widow's death repudiate his action and sue for possession of the property alienated by the widow. If the presumpfive reversioner is a minor at the time he has taken a benefit under the transaction, the principle of estoppel will be controlled by' another rule governing the law of minors. A minor cannot be compelled to take the benefit of a transaction which will have the effect of depriving him of his legal rights when the succession opens. But a minor can, after attaining majority, ratify the transaction entered into on his behalf by his guardian. If he so ratifies the transaction entered into by his guardian and accepts the benefit thereunder, there cannot be any difference in the application of the principle of election. If the original transaction conferring. the benefit was in favour o'f.the minor his enjoyment of the benefit after attaining the ir.ajority may in itself be ·a sufficient act of ratificafion. f,578 D-G] Krishna Beharilal v. Guiab Chand, :L1971] 1 S.C.C. 837, T. V. R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar and Ors., [,1961) 3 S.C.R. 624, Fateh Singh v. Thakur Rukmini Pamanji Maharan, I.L.R. XIV All. 339 Jagarlpudi Seetharamayya ''- Sarva Chandra/ya (1954] 2 M.L. J. 162, Maklneni Vinzyya, v. Madamanchi Sapayya, [1964] 1 M.L.J. 276, and Ramgouda Annagouda v. Bhausaheb, 54 I.A. 396, referred to. Further, if a person having full knowledge of his right as a possible reversioner enters into a transaction which settles his claim as well as the claim of the opponents at the relevant time he cannot be permitted to go hack on that agreement when reversion actually falls open. Although con- flict of legal claims in present or in future is generally a condition for the validity of family arrangements it is not necessarily so. Even bona fide disputes present or possible, which may not involve legal claims would be suffi~ient. Members of a Joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace A B D E F G H A B c D E F G H s. s. PILLAI v. K. s. PILLAI (Hegde, J.) 57 l or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arralfge- ment. If such an agreement is e'1tered into bona fide and the terms thereto are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, the courts would more readily give assent tc such an agreement than to avoi? it. .[580 D, 581Al Sallu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram, :[,1955] 2 S.C.R. 22, Maturi Pul/aiah v. Maturi Narasimhan, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1836 and Krishna Behari/ll/ v. Guiab Chand, [1971] 1 S.C.C. 837, referred to. (ii) A dedication of a property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete a trust in favour of a charity is created. Jlf the ded,cation is partial, a trust in favour of a cbarity is not created but a charge in favour of charity is attached to, and follows the property which retains its original private and secular character. Whether or not a dedicat:on is complete would naturally be a quesfon of fact to be determined in each case on the terms of the relevant document if the dedication in question was made under a document. If
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.