This article has been written by Jaanvi Jolly. It examines the judgement of Puttarangamma vs. M.S. Ranganna (1968), where the question related to partition under Hindu law arose. This article attempts to exhaustively explain the concept and different stages of partition under Mitakshara law. It also briefly discusses the concept of the coparcenary and the rule of devolution followed in the case of such property, which is the rule of survivorship. A brief discussion has also been done on the rule of succession in the case of separate property under traditional Hindu law.

Introduction

The question of property rights often creates disputes within the family. The coparcenary property, as a general rule, is passed on as per the doctrine of survivorship under traditional Hindu law. The doctrine of survivorship entitled only the male coparceners within four generations of lineage from the last male holder to such property. The widow or the daughters of such coparceners who die with an undivided interest in the property, received no interest in the property. The only way that a coparcener could ensure his widow or his daughters any proprietary rights in his share of coparcenary property was by seeking a partition. Consequently, the divided share becomes his separate property, capable of being devolved upon his heirs by succession. 

The present case was instituted in the year 1951, therefore, the question of partition and succession arising herein had to be dealt with as per the traditional Hindu law and not the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the present factual matrix, a tussle to ensure the property rights of one’s family was involved. On one hand, the plaintiff, who was the father of four daughters, sought to claim a partition prior to his death to ensure that his daughters got a share of the property of their father. On the other hand, we have the nephew of the plaintiff, who is a coparcener in the joint family and sought to prove that the plaintiff did not successfully seek a partition prior to his death and therefore his share in the coparcenary property would devolve upon the surviving coparceners and not upon the daughters of the plaintiff as his separate property. Therefore the question discussed in the case is,’ when will the partition be deemed to have been effected?’ The court analysed the effect of communication of intention to separate and the effect of revocation of such intention. Additionally, the effect of filing of a suit seeking severance is also discussed.

Details of the case 

• Case Name – Puttarangamma vs. M.S Ranganna (1968)
• Appellant – Puttarangamma ( 1st LR of the original plaintiff Savoy Ranganna)
• Respondent – M.S Ranganna
• Date of judgement- 8th February 1968
• Court – Supreme Court
• Bench – Honourable Justice V. Ramaswami and Honourable Justice J.C Shah
• Judgement authored by – Honourable Justice V. Ramaswami
• Type of case – Civil Appeal 
• Equivalent Citations – 1968 SCR (3) 119

Facts of the case 

The original plaintiff along with the appellants and the defendants are part of the joint Hindu family. In this joint Hindu family, the plaintiff was the Karta. He had four daughters, namely Chikka Rangamma (the defendant in the original suit), Putta Rangamma, Rangathayamma and Chinnathayamma (impleaded as the LR of the plaintiff after his death for the purpose of this appeal) and had no male issue. 

On 4 January 1951, the plaintiff became immensely ill and was admitted to a nursing home for treatment. On 8 January 1951, he issued notices via registered post to the defendants (now respondents) communicating his intention to separate from the joint family. By doing so, he intended to safeguard the interests of his daughters. Had he died undivided from the joint family, the doctrine of survivorship would have come into effect and his share in the coparcenary property would have survived upon the surviving coparcener and his daughters would have no share in it.

Subsequently, some relatives of the plaintiff intervened with the intention of bringing about a settlement. Following their advice, the plaintiff withdrew the notices issued earlier. Even after attempts were made for reconciliation, no settlement could be reached and therefore the plaintiff ended up filing the present suit on 13 January 1951 for partition and separate possession of his share in the properties of the joint family.

Decision of the Trial Court 

• The presentation of the plaint was valid as,  plaintiff had voluntarily and in a sound state of mind affixed his thumb impression on the plaint as well as the vakalatnama. 
• The Trial Court also held that the notices issued on 8 January 1951 were a clear and unequivocal declaration of the intention of the plaintiff to separate from the joint Hindu family and there was sufficient communication of such intention to the other coparceners. 
• The Trial Court also stated that both at the time of issuing notices and at the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff was in a sound state of mind and was aware of the consequences of his act. Therefore, the decree was granted in favour of the appellants.

The decision was appealed against by the respondents before the Mysore High Court. 

Decision of the High Court

• The High Court reversed the decision of the trial Court as held, the claim of severance of joint family state from the date of the notice could not be sustained.
• The court stated that it was not sufficiently proven that the suit had been instituted by the plaintiff or that he had executed the plaint. 
• Further, it was held that the issuance of notice dated January 1951, could not be said to have disrupted the joint family status as, firstly,  there was no proof of the due service of the notice upon the respondent or other coparceners, and secondly, since the notices had been withdrawn by the plaintiff. 

Issues raised 

The following were the issues raised before the Supreme Court in the present appeal-

1. Whether the plaintiff had died as a separate or divided member of the joint family property or not.
2. Whether the plaint filed on 13 January 1951 was validly executed by the plaintiff and whether he affixed his thumb impression on it after understanding the contents.

Arguments of the parties

Appellant

1. The appellant claimed that respondent no. 1 was fully aware of the notices that were issued, as he was present in the nursing house on the date of issuance. Further, they also claimed that respondent no. 1  had tried to destroy the notice by snatching it away from the hands of the doctor but was prevented from doing so. Additionally, respondent no. 1, along with his mother, came to visit the plaintiff in the nursing home, attempted to compel him to withdraw the notice and proposed to solve the dispute amicably.
2. The appellant submitted that Shri M.S. Ranganathan had prepared the complaint and took it to the nursing home On 13 January 1951. He translated the plane to the plaintiff who approved the same and affixed his thumb impression on the plain and the vocal Nama. The suit was instituted on the same day.

Respondent  

1. The respondent claimed that the plaintiff was not in a sound state of mind to either issue the notice of severance or to institute the plaint. He claims that the plaintiff had a paralytic stroke in 1950 and was thereafter bedridden. Further, even his eyesight had been bad for 5 to 6 years prior to his death. He also claimed that a week before his death, the plaintiff had remained unconscious. He further claimed that the notices were withdrawn from the post office itself and never reached the coparceners including respondent no. 1.
2. The respondent had claimed that the doctor had clearly stated that the mental condition of the patient was bad and that he was unable to understand things when an examination was conducted on the morning of 13 January 1951. 
3. It was argued by the respondent that no separation of status had occurred within the joint family either by the notice issued on 8 January 1951 or by the institution of the present suit on 13 January 1951.
4. The respondent claimed that the plaintiff was an aged man and was not in good health, therefore making him unable to understand the contents of the plaint in the present suit or to affix his signature on the vakalatnama.
5. He denied any communication of notice to him and further, in any case, such notices were ultimately withdrawn by the plaintiff unconditionally. Therefore, he claimed that no partition had occurred in the family prior to the death of the plaintiff. Since no partition had occurred, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a degree, claiming partition and separate possession in the capacity of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff.

Laws/concepts involved in this case

The process of partition under Hindu law

In an undivided coparcenary, all the coparceners have joint ownership till the time of partition. A coparcenary  has two basic incidents- 

1. Community of interest, which indicates that the ownership of the coparcenary property is joint 
2. Unity of possession, which signifies its common physical enjoyment of such property

Where the community of interest is broken or divided, either at the instance of one coparcener or by the mutual agreement of all the coparceners, the shares are demarcated and converted into their separate shares. A partition is the numerical division of the property. Once the shares of the coparceners are defined after the calculation of the shares, the family may divide the property by ‘metes and bounds’ or they may continue to stay together. However, the property ceases to be joined and immediately the shares are defined and the parties hold the property as ‘tenants in common’ as distinguished from their earliest status of ‘joint tenants’.

A coparcener has an undivided coparcenary interest in the joint family property and coincidental to this interest is the right to seek severance of his status from the family and get a share on partition. The separation in status can be brought about by a definite, unequivocal, and unilateral declaration of the coparceners’ intention to separate from the family. There is no requirement of an agreement between all the coparceners to initiate a partition of the joint family property, as it is a unilateral declaration of intention.

The mere intention relating to the partition of the property is sufficient to initiate the process of partition, as is evident from the following sources of Hindu law:

In the commentary of Vijnameswara, it has been quoted, “And thus the mother is having her menstrual courses and the father has an attachment and does not desire a partition yet by the will of the son a partition of the grandfather’s wealth does take place”. In the Saraswathi Vilasa, it has been stated that “even without any speech even by a declaration, a partition is effected”. It is evident that the focus is on the “budhivisesha” which is the mental state or condition of mind to determine the intention of severance and declaration is considered to be merely “abhivyanjika”, a manifestation.

This position of Hindu law was further reaffirmed in the case of Suraj Narain vs. Iqbal Narain (1912) by the Bombay High Court. It was stated by the Court that the definite and unambiguous intention of one member to separate himself and enjoy his share of severalty may amount to separation if the intention is unequivocal and clearly expressed. A mere statement that a person separated a few months ago, with no writing in support of such allegation or nothing to prove the expression of an unambiguous intention of severing would not be said to effect a partition.

Further, in the case of Girja Bai vs. Sadashiv Dhundiraj (1916), the distinction between a ‘de jure’ partition and a ‘de facto’ partition was clarified. The former is the severance of status as per law as far as the separating member is concerned, while the latter is the final division by metes and bounds. “ One is a matter of individual decision, the desire on the part of any one member to sever himself from the joint family and to enjoy his undefined or unspecified share separately from others without being subject to the obligations arising from the joint status, whilst the other is the natural resultant from this decision, the division and separation of his share. Once the decision has been unequivocally expressed and clearly intimated to his coparcener, his right to obtain and possess the share to which he admittedly has a title is unimpeachable; neither the coparcener can question it nor can the Court examine his conscience to find out whether his reasons for separation were well-founded or sufficient, rather the Court will simply give effect to his right to have his share allocated separately from the others.”

Doctrine of Survivorship

The coparcenary within the Hindu joint family is a narrow body of males within four generations from the last male holder. These individuals have an undivided coparcenary interest in the joint family property and, thus, are the joint owners of such property. The coparcenary interest of each coparcener was a fluctuating one, that increased and decreased upon the death and birth of a coparcener. Whenever a coparcener died as an undivided member of the family, his interest in the joint family property devolved upon the surviving coparcener. This was due to the doctrine of survivorship. The heirs of such coparcener had no right in this property. However, in case the coparcener had, prior to his death, partitioned from the joint family, then his separate share, which he received on the partition would be considered to be his separate property in reference to the people who were alive at the time of the partition. This share would devolve as his separate property upon his legal heirs. Herein, the doctrine of survivorship would be substituted by the doctrine of succession.

The right of daughters in succession to the separate property of their father: Pre-Hindu Succession Act, 1956

In the landmark judgement of Arunachala Gounder (dead) by LR’s vs. Ponnusamy (2022), the Apex Court discussed the position of a daughter in succeeding to the separate property of her father prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Wherein, after reference to various sources of Hindu law, the Court held that the property of a deceased male would first succeed upon his son, in his absence upon the person’s widow, and on the failure of both above would devolve upon the daughter. Therefore, the father or the other family members of the deceased male cannot take the property of a son-less man, while his daughter is alive.

In the commentary titled ‘Hindu law and judicature’ by the renowned author, Edward Roer, it has been stated that, “if a man departs this life without male issue; (i) his wife, (ii) his daughter, (iii) his parents, (iv) his brothers, (v) the sons of his brothers, (vi) others of the same gotra, (vii) kindred more remote, (viii) a pupil, (ix) a fellow-student – these succeed to the inheritance, each class upon failure of the one preceding. This rule applies to all the caste.” 

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Syed Kasam vs. Jorawar Singh (1922) 

In this case, the Judicial Committee observed that it is a settled position under Mitakshara law that a mere unequivocal declaration by one coparcener of his intention to secure a severance of his share is sufficient to effect a severance. Further, the commencement of a suit for partition was considered sufficient to effect a division in interest, even prior to the final decree.

Kurapati Radhakrishna vs. Kurapati Satyanarayana (1948) 

In this case, a suit was filed by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration that the sale of certain family properties would not bind him and for the partition of his share and separate possession thereof. The plaintiff alleged that he was unwilling to remain joint with the family and claimed the separation of his 1/5th share from the joint family property. All the defendants, who were the coparceners in the joint family, were served the summons. Later, defendant No.1 passed away. Upon his death, the plaintiff sought to withdraw his suit by stating that after the death of defendant no. 1, he had to manage the family. The Madras High Court held that the plaint presented in the suit had already affected a division in the status of the family and now the plaintiff cannot revoke or withdraw his unequivocal intention to separate. The Court treated him as a divided member and worked out his share.

Judgement in Puttarangamma & 2 Ors. vs. M.S. Ranganna & 3 Ors. (1968)

The Hon’ble Court held that the act of issuance of notice and subsequent knowledge of respondent no.1 about the intention to severe were sufficient to effect a partition.

Status of the petitioner at the time of his death

The claim of the respondent that the plaintiff was not in a sound state of mind to voluntarily issue the notices of severance was rejected by the Court in light of the evidence of the doctor who was in charge of the nursing home. The Court believed the testimony of the doctor that, although the plaintiff was anaemic, there was no attack of paralysis. 

Further, on the date of the issuance of notices of severance, another doctor, who is the owner of the nursing house, testified that at the time of affixing the thumbprint on the notices, the plaintiff was conscious and the notices that had been sent out were read over to the plaintiff. It was only after his approval of the contents and voluntarily affixing his thumbprint that the notices were sent out. The doctor further stated that he himself asked the plaintiff whether he was able to comprehend the contents of the notice, to which the plaintiff replied in affirmative. The Court found no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the two doctors.

The Court also referred to the case of Raghavamma vs. Addagada Chenchamma (1963) wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that if a member is intending to separate from the family, he must clearly communicate and make known his intention to other members of the family. On this note, the Court held that, although the notices did not reach the coparceners, respondent no. 1 was sufficiently aware of the intention of the plaintiff to seek severance from the joint family.

The Court analysed various precedents and arrived at the conclusion that, as per Hindu law, to bring about the severance of status, there are three essential conditions to be fulfilled-

1. Formation of intention to separate from the joint family
2. Declaration of intention to separate
3. Communication of intention to Karta, and if he is unavailable, then to the other coparceners

The only requirement is of clear and unequivocal communication to the members affected. The manner of such communication is dependent upon the circumstances. The requirement of of a formal receipt of the communication is not essential. The inability to prove this, would not affect the severance of status. The only paramount condition is that for the declaration to be effective, it must reach the person or person affected by such Intention to separate. 

Applying the settled law to the present factual matrix, the Court held that a definite and unequivocal declaration of the intention to separate was present on the part of the plaintiff. His intention was conveyed to respondent no. 1  and he had full knowledge of his declaration as he was present in the nursing home when the notice was finalised. Therefore, it was held that the severance of the plaintiff from the joint family was effected on 8 January 1951. That was the date on which the notice was dispatched.

The Court also rejected the contention put forward by respondent  No.1 about the withdrawal of such notice by the plaintiff. He claimed that since he instructed the postal authorities to not send out the notices, the severance of status was not complete. The Court held that once there was a unilateral declaration of intention to divide from the joint family followed by sufficient communication of this intention to the other coparceners, disruption in the joint status occurs. Once the intention is communicated via a declaration, It is not open to the coparcener who intends to separate, withdraw such declaration, and nullify the effect of the severance. This is due to the fact that the mere communication of intention results in a divided status of the joint family, which is followed by the resultant legal consequences. Had the mere declaration not had any legal effects, it could have been withdrawn. Therefore,  the plaintiff could not restore the joint status of the family by revocating his intention. Although the members of the family could later by an agreement unite, this result cannot be obtained by the revocation of the declaration, nor can such declaration be treated as an agreement to unite, as the latter is a multilateral act while the former is a unilateral one.

The Court held that the plaintiff became separate from the joint family on and from 8 January 1951, which was the date of dispatch of the notice.

Valid execution of the plaint by the petitioner

The Court analysed the testimony of defence witness 6 (doctor in the nursing home) wherein he stated in his examination in chief that the plaintiff was unconscious on 13th January. However, he himself in the cross examination, stated that on the night of 12 January 1951, the plaintiff was conscious and on 13 January 1951 he had prescribed the same medicines to the plaintiff as the day before. The court also considered the testimony of prosecution witness 2 (the doctor who owned the nursing home), who deposed that the plaintiff was in a stable state on the relevant date.  Further, there was no data in the case sheet suggesting the unconscious or unstable state of the plaintiff. 

The Court refused to rely on the testimony of D.W 6 and concluded that there was no major change in the condition of the plaintiff on the 12th and 13th of January. Therefore, it accepted the contentions put forward by the appellant and held that the plaintiff had, voluntarily and in a sound state of mind, approved the plaint and subsequently put his thumb impressions on it. It was established that the plaintiff had validly executed the plaint and the Vakalatnama.

This issue was decided in the favour of the appellants.

In conclusion, the Court granted the decree in favour of the appellants and respondent no. 4, who are the daughters and the legal representatives of the plaintiff.

Rationale behind this judgement

The rationale behind this judgement was that the right to partition is an inherent right of a coparcener. It cannot be restricted by putting up qualifications like the agreement of all the coparceners to such a partition  or the calculation of the exact share for a partition to be effective. In order to effect a severance of status in the joint family, the most important step is the communication of an unequivocal intention to severe from the family. This intention has to be communicated to the other coparceners, as they are the persons affected by the partition. The Court stated that this communication is a unilateral act and the moment it has come to the notice of the persons affected, the partition takes place. This is an irrevocable act, which means that even the person who declares such an intention cannot later change his mind and choose to remain joint with the family. The moment the communication is made, an automatic partition takes place. It is important to note that the exact state of his share in the property has not yet been calculated. 

Analysis of the case

As per the true notion of an undivided Hindu joint family, no individual member of the family while he remains undivided can predict his definite share in the property. As per Hindu law, to bring about severance of status, there are three essential conditions to be fulfilled-

• Formation of intention to separate from the joint family
• Declaration of intention to separate
• Communication of intention to Karta, and if he is Unavailable, then to the other coparceners

Since a partition is a matter of individual volition, the formation and declaration of the intention must be clear and unambiguous. The intention of the coparcener to separate must be evident from his words. An uncommunicated intention is no intention and does not result in a partition.

The concept of de jure and de facto partition must also be considered to determine the effective date of severance. The moment the communication of the declaration of the intention to severe from the joint family is done, the partition is immediately affected as per law. Any fluctuations in the coparcenary property by way of birth or death, subsequent to such a declaration would not affect the share of the person intending to separate. The de jure partition, which is done by metes and bounds, either by the members of the coparcenary themselves or by an order of the Court, is only a consequence of the de jure partition. The mere absence of the division of the property by metes and bounds cannot be held to mean that the person intending to separate will remain joint until his exact share is calculated. The mere declaration of his intention to severe and enjoy his share in severalty is sufficient to cause a disruption in the joint status.

The present case has been relied upon in the following judgements:

1. Rajinder Kumar vs. R.K. Bajaj And Ors (1992) by the Delhi High Court. In this case, it was contended by the defendant that in Delhi to enforce a partition of property by a son during the lifetime of his father, there was no bar. The court relied upon the present case and held that, under the mitakshara law, a member of the joint family can bring about separation and status by his definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of intention to separate from the family. There is no requirement for an agreement between all the coparceners to disrupt the joint status.
2. Parasumanna Lakshmanier vs. P.L. Krishnamachary (1975), herein the Madras High Court, held that when once, one of the members of the joint family, unequivocally informs his father of his unambiguous intention to sever his connection with the joint family and so disrupts the joint family status, then the manager, even though he is the father, cannot, under the garb of managership, alienate the joint family assets and gift them away to others including the kith and kin of the family. The court referred to the present case and stated that the position of communication of partition has been settled by it.

Conclusion 

Therefore, to conclude, we can say that the right to partition is an inherent right of a coparcener. It cannot be restricted by putting up qualifications like the agreement of all the coparceners to such a partition  or the calculation of the exact share for a partition to be effective. The coparcener, by his volition, can decide to be severed from the joint status of the family by forming an intention to separate and subsequently communicating that intention to separate to the other coparceners.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Would the mere filing of a suit be considered as communication of intention to separate and thereby cause a de jure partition?

The effective date of severance of status depends upon the manner in which the intention is communicated. The intention and its manifestation must be brought to the knowledge of all those who would be affected by it. A coparcener can manifest his equivocal intention to separate either by communicating it to the Karta directly or even by instituting a suit for partition. A suit demanding a partition is clear evidence of his declaration of intention to separate from the family. It will affect the severance of status from the date of the institution of the suit in court, irrespective of when he gets the decree from the court.  Further, if he dies during the pendency of the suit, he dies as a separate member and his legal representative can continue the suit.

What is the consequence of Karta stating in his will that all the property will be partitioned?

This question was answered in the case of Brij Raj Singh vs.Sheodan Singh (1913). The Court stated that no coparcener, not even the father, has a right to make a partition by will of the joint family property among the various members of the family without their consent. Further, in the case of Kalyani vs. Narayan 1980 SC, the Court held that if there is consent of all the coparceners, then in case of such a will, it may operate as a family arrangement.

References

1. Critical analysis of Partition under Hindu lawiPleaders Bloghttps://blog.ipleaders.in › Family Law
2. case law on the aspect of joint family property/successionDistrict Courthttps://districts.ecourts.gov.in › sites › default › files
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/muslim-law-of-inheritance/#Judicial_pronouncements