T. V. R. SUBBU CHETTY'S FAMILY CHARITIES versus M. RAGHAVA MUDALIAR AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 624 · Decided: 27-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

January •7· 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
T. V. R. SUBBU CHETTY'S FAMILY CHARITIES 
v. 
M. RAGHAVA MUDALIAR AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO and 
K. C. Das GuPTa, JJ.) 
Hindu Law-Alienation by widow-Reversioner's suit to set 
aside alienation-Ratification of alienation by reversioner. 
M, a Hindu, died leaving his mother, widow, sisters and 
sisters' son and daughters. There were disputes between the 
mother and the widow which were settled at the instance of cer-
tain arbitrators. Under this settlement a portion of one of the 
houses was given to a sister of M, another portion to ,R son of 
another sister and his sister and a third portion to the daughter 
of the third sister. Certain properties, which had been agreed to 
be .sold under the settlement were sold to the appellant by the 
mother and the widow. After the death of the mother and the 
widow R filed a suit as the next reversioner of M for recovery of 
the properties sold on the ground that the alienation was without 
necessity and was not binding on him. The appellant contended 
(i) that R was precfo.ded from disputing the settlement between 
the mother and the widow as he had received a benefit under it 
and had ratified it by his conduct and 
(ii) that the transfer was 
for legal necessity. 
Held, that the transfer was not binding on Rand he was 
entitled to avoid it. The settlement between the mother and the 
widow was also not binding on R. If a person having full 
knowledge of his rights 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 
back on that arrangement when reversion actually .falls open. 
But the mere fact that the reversioner has received some:benefit 
under the transaction or has not challenged its validity wheii'il:• 
took place cann·ot bar his rights as a reversioner. It will always 
be a question of fact as to whether the conduct of the reversioner 
on which the plea of ratification is based does in law amount to 
ratification properly so called. In the. present case the settlement 
was not in the nature of a family arrangement; at that time R 
was a minor .and was-not a party to any of the said transactions. 
There was no conduct of R which could amount to ratification of 
the settlement or of the alienation. At the time when he accepted 
the gift he could not know about his rights .as a possible rever-
sioner. Further, there was no legal necessity for the transfer. · 
Sahu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram [1955] 2 S.C.R.. 22, 
Dhiyan Singh v. fugal Kishore [1952] S.C.R. 478, Kanhai Lal v. 
Brij LaJ (1918) L.R. 45 I.A. rr8, R•ngasami Gounden v. N achiappa 
Gounden (r9r8) L.R. 46 I.A. 72 and Ramgouda Annacouda v. 
Bhausakb (r927) L.R. 54 I.A. 396, referred to. 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
625 
CIVIL APPELLATE JmtISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
1961 
. 204/1956. ' 
Subbu Ch.tly's 
Appeal from the judgment a.nd 
decree dated Family Chari1ies 
February 23, 1951, of the Madras High Court in 0. S. 
v. 
Appeal No. 13/1948. 
Raghava Mudaliar 
R. Keshva Aiyangar and M. S. K. Aiyangarc, for the 
appellant. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit 
Lal,, for 
respondent No. 1. 
B. K. B. Naidu, for respondent No. 6. 
1961. January 27. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal a.rises out of a. Gajendragadkar J. 
suit filed by the respondent M. Rag ha. va. Mudaliar who 
claims to be the reversioner of Madha.va. Rama.nuja. 
Mudaliar. In his suit the respondent alle·ges that 
after the death of Madha.va. Ramanuja Mudaliar which 
took place on March 22, 1893, his property came into 
the possession of his widow Manicka.mmal. Sub. 
sequently the said Manickammal and Rengammal, the 
widowed mother of the deceased Madhava Rama.nuja 
Mudaliar alienated the properties without any legal 
necessity. According to the respondent the . said 
alienation was not binding on him a.nd so he wa.s 
entitled to recover possession of the said property free 
of a.ny encumbrance or charge. Manickamma.l died 
on October 18, 1941, whereas Rengammal died in 
June, 1921. On the death of the widow Ma.nickammal 
reversion fell open and that has given a cause of action 
to the respondent for his present suit. 
Madha.va Ramanuja Mudaliar died issueless and was 
survived by his widow, his widowed mother, his sister 
Anda.Jammal and the respondent 
and his sister 
Apurupamma.l who a.re the children of Amma.kannu 

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