THAMMA VENKATA SUBBAMMA (DEAD) BY L.R. versus THAMMA RATTAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 236 · Decided: 06-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THAMMA VENKATA SUBBAMMA (DEAD) BY L.R. 
v. 
THAMMA RATTAMMA & ORS. 
MAY 6, 1987 
[M.M. DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Mitakshara School of Hindu Law-Gift by a 
Coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener 
without consent of other coparceners-Whether valid or void-He/d-
Valid. 
Hindu Succ~ssi~n Act 1956-Section 30-Jnterpretation of 
A coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family governed by the l\litakshara 
school in Hindu Law executed a deed of settlement (which indisputably was 
really a deed of gift) in favour of another coparcener (his brother) 
D conveyhg his entire undivided interest in the coparcenary but reserving 
a life int~rest to himself and also providing that after his death the other 
coparcener should maintain his wife. In a suit for partition and re· 
covery 'or the property filed by the widow of the coparcener who 
executed a deed of settlement on the ground that the gift deed was a void 
document under the Hindu Law, the Trial Court held that the deed of 
E 
settlement· 'was void and inoperative under the Hindu Law in the 
absence of consent of the other coparcener. On appeal the High Court 
. held that the deed of settlement was valid. In this appeal by special leave 
the question fo~ ~:msideration was whether a gift by a coparcener of his 
undivided c~parcenary interest to another coparcener is void or not. 
The argument of the respondent was that it was a case of renunciation 
F . or relinquishment of a coparcener's interest in favour or his brother 
and his sons. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD: 1. A gift made by the coparcener to his brother should be 
G construed as renunciation of his undivided interest in the coparcenary 
in favour of his brother and his sons,. who were the remaining copar· 
ceners. A gift was, therefore, valid and consent of other coparceners 
was immaterial. (246A·B] 
Mu/la's Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, Article 264 at page 357, 
H referred to. 
236' 
T.V. SUBBAMMA v. T. RATTAMMA 
237 
2. It is, however, settled law that a coparcener may alienate bis A 
undivided interest in the coparcenary property for a valuable consi-
deration even without the consent of other coparceners, Such recogni-
tion of alienations of coparcenary property for valuable ronslderatiom 
bas been one of gradual growth founded npon the equity wbicil the 
purchaser for value bas to be allowed to stand in bis vendor's shoes and 
to_ work out bis rights by meansof a partition. (244B-C) 
B 
Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh and Ors., ILR 6 IA 88, 
'~· referred to.· 
r-
; 
·/ 
/ 
3. The personal Law of the Hindus gonmed by l\litaksbara 
school of Hindu Law is that a coparcener can dispose of bis undivided C 
interest in the coparcenary property by a will but be cannot make a gift 
ofsucb interest. (2430) 
' 
Ponnusami v. Thatha and Ors., ILR I) Madras, 273; Ramanna v. 
Venkata, ILR 11 Madras 246; Rottala Rungunatham Chetty v, Pulicat 
Ramasami Chetti, ILR 27 Madras, 162; Mayne's Hindu Law, Eleventh D 
Edition, Article 382 and Mulla's Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, Article 
258, referred to. 
4. It is a· settled law that a coparcener can make a gift or bis 
undivided interest in the coparcenary property to another coparcener 
or to a stranger with the prior consent of other coparceners. Such a gift E 
will be quite legal and valid. (243G) 
5. When a particular state or law bas been prevailing for decades 
in a particular area and the people of that are having adjusted 
themselves with that law in their dally life. It Is not desirable that the 
court should upset such law except under compelling clttumstances.. It F 
is for the Legislature to consider whether It should change such law or · 
not. It may be legitilnately presumed that before the passing of the 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Legislature must have taken into 
consideration the prohibition against making of gifts by a coparcener of 
his undivided interest in the coparcenary property, but the Legislature 
bas not, except permitting the coparcener to make a will in respect of G 
bis undivided interest by section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, altered 
the law against making of gift by a coparcener of bis undivided interest. 
While considering whether the ·strict rule agahist alienation by gift 
should be interfered with or not, the court should also take into eonsl· 
deration the legislative inaction in not interfering with the rnle against 
alienation by gift, while enacting the Hindu Succession

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