# M<1.ngtas Tta FJlt.tt v. lls H'orkmm

- **Citation:** [1964] 2 S.C.R. 172
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Bench:** P. B. Ga.Jendragadkar, M. Hidayatullar, j. C. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-1-ngtas-tta-fjlt-tt-v-lls-h-orkmm-2834
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Hindu Law~loinr family prop<rly-i'artirion-lligld of
niinor-,)l't'f',ranct of joint property-Su.it for ]Xlrlitinn by 111inor if
can be con.Jini£ed a/kr hi8 dfath-Sej><r-TfJte or
self·ar"luirc<l property, when impru.ed wilh rhe charact.r of joinl family prop<,.ty.
Butchi Tirupati was a member of a Hindu co-parcenary
consisting of himself, his five l>rothcrs and his son P11Ila Reddy.
After llutchi Tripati's death in 1947, Pulla Reddy, his sou and
Lakshmaina, his wido,v, filed a st1it for partition and separate
possession of their share in the properly of the joint family
an<l a fourth share in certain property
devised under a \VilJ
executed by \'en<'1ta Konda
Reddy in July, 1910.
l'ulla
Reddy was then a minor and his in.other acted as his nex"
friend. Pulla Reddy died during the pendency of the suit and
his mother \Va~ shown ln the record as his legal representative
for the suit.
The suit v:as contested on the gro11nd that it
was highly μrejudicial to the interest of P11lla Redciy to hAV(' his
share separatt!d from the joint f;unily '"-,tale. It WA-'i also denied
that Pulla Reddy aoJd ht• mother had been driven away from
the family house.
·
The trial court holrl th;ll part1t1on of the joint family
property was for the benefit of the minor P11lla Reddy and tho
High Court affirmed that view. Two questions raised before
the Supreme Court were whether the suit for partition of jollii
..
.
.
2 S.C.R .
SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS
i73
family property could, after the death of the minor, Pulla
Reddy, be continued by his mot!..er and whe_ther the property
devised uuder the will of Venkata Konda Reddy in favour
of <lcfe11dants l, 2, 5 and Butchi Tiruμati had, because of
blending with their joint family estate, been impressed with the
character of joint family property.
Held, that the suit for partition of the joint family
property could, after the death of the minor, he continued by
his mother. Action by the minor for a decree for partition
and separate possession of his share in the family property
was not founded on a cause of action personal to him. The
right claimed was in property and devolved on his death even
during minority upon his legal representative. The effect of
!he decision of the Court granting a decree for partition in a
suit instituted by a minor was not to create a new right which
the minor did not possess but merely to recognise the right
which accrued to him when the action was commenced. It
is the institution of the suit, subject to the decision of the
Court and not the decree of the Court that brings about the
severance. A suit filed on behalf of a Hindu minor for partition
of a joint family property does not, on the death of the minor
during the pendency of the suit abate and may be continued
by his legal representative and decree obtained therein if
the Court holds that the institution of the suit was for the
benefit of the minor.
Held, also, that there was no evidence on the record to
•how that by any conscious act or exercise of volition, Butchi
Tirupati surrendered his interest in the property devised in his
favour under the will of Venkata Konda Reddy so as to
blend it with the joint family property. Lakshmama, mother
of the minor, was entitled to a fourth share in the property.
Property separate or self-acquired of a member of a joint
Hindu family may be impre,.ed wiih the character of joint
family property if it is voluatarily thrown by the owner into
the common stock with the intention of abandoning his
/963
Lakkire.ddi
ChinAO
JI mhttJ Retllli
v.
lakJWuldi
Laks/amarnD
1963
lokkfrttldi ChirUla
Vtn..Wla Rtddi
v.
laUir1dtli
l..slcshmoma
SnaA /,
·174 sUPREMtcouR.tR.ti>oR.ts[i!l64J \!oL
separate clain1 therein.
To establish such abaudonmenf, a
clear intention to waive separate right must be established.
From the 1n<:Tc fact that other members of the farnily were
allowed to use the property jointly with himself or that the
income of the separate property was utilised out of generosity
to support persons whom the holde

## Text

1963
M<1.ngtas Tta FJlt.tt
v.
lls H'orkmm
Hi44yoM/ah J.
/963
M•rrn 4
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
I
to interfere with the conculsion of the Trihunal.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dis·
missed with costs.
A ppP.<Jl dismiMrd.
LAKKIREDDI CHIN:'>:A VEl\KATA REDDI
v.
LAKKIREDDI LAKSHMAl\fA
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAR and
j. C. SHAH jj.)
Hindu Law~loinr family prop<rly-i'artirion-lligld of
niinor-,)l't'f',ranct of joint property-Su.it for ]Xlrlitinn by 111inor if
can be con.Jini£ed a/kr hi8 dfath-Sej><r-TfJte or
self·ar"luirc<l property, when impru.ed wilh rhe charact.r of joinl family prop<,.ty.
Butchi Tirupati was a member of a Hindu co-parcenary
consisting of himself, his five l>rothcrs and his son P11Ila Reddy.
After llutchi Tripati's death in 1947, Pulla Reddy, his sou and
Lakshmaina, his wido,v, filed a st1it for partition and separate
possession of their share in the properly of the joint family
an<l a fourth share in certain property
devised under a \VilJ
executed by \'en<'1ta Konda
Reddy in July, 1910.
l'ulla
Reddy was then a minor and his in.other acted as his nex"
friend. Pulla Reddy died during the pendency of the suit and
his mother \Va~ shown ln the record as his legal representative
for the suit.
The suit v:as contested on the gro11nd that it
was highly μrejudicial to the interest of P11lla Redciy to hAV(' his
share separatt!d from the joint f;unily '"-,tale. It WA-'i also denied
that Pulla Reddy aoJd ht• mother had been driven away from
the family house.
·
The trial court holrl th;ll part1t1on of the joint family
property was for the benefit of the minor P11lla Reddy and tho
High Court affirmed that view. Two questions raised before
the Supreme Court were whether the suit for partition of jollii
..
.
.
2 S.C.R .
SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS
i73
family property could, after the death of the minor, Pulla
Reddy, be continued by his mot!..er and whe_ther the property
devised uuder the will of Venkata Konda Reddy in favour
of <lcfe11dants l, 2, 5 and Butchi Tiruμati had, because of
blending with their joint family estate, been impressed with the
character of joint family property.
Held, that the suit for partition of the joint family
property could, after the death of the minor, he continued by
his mother. Action by the minor for a decree for partition
and separate possession of his share in the family property
was not founded on a cause of action personal to him. The
right claimed was in property and devolved on his death even
during minority upon his legal representative. The effect of
!he decision of the Court granting a decree for partition in a
suit instituted by a minor was not to create a new right which
the minor did not possess but merely to recognise the right
which accrued to him when the action was commenced. It
is the institution of the suit, subject to the decision of the
Court and not the decree of the Court that brings about the
severance. A suit filed on behalf of a Hindu minor for partition
of a joint family property does not, on the death of the minor
during the pendency of the suit abate and may be continued
by his legal representative and decree obtained therein if
the Court holds that the institution of the suit was for the
benefit of the minor.
Held, also, that there was no evidence on the record to
•how that by any conscious act or exercise of volition, Butchi
Tirupati surrendered his interest in the property devised in his
favour under the will of Venkata Konda Reddy so as to
blend it with the joint family property. Lakshmama, mother
of the minor, was entitled to a fourth share in the property.
Property separate or self-acquired of a member of a joint
Hindu family may be impre,.ed wiih the character of joint
family property if it is voluatarily thrown by the owner into
the common stock with the intention of abandoning his
/963
Lakkire.ddi
ChinAO
JI mhttJ Retllli
v.
lakJWuldi
Laks/amarnD
1963
lokkfrttldi ChirUla
Vtn..Wla Rtddi
v.
laUir1dtli
l..slcshmoma
SnaA /,
·174 sUPREMtcouR.tR.ti>oR.ts[i!l64J \!oL
separate clain1 therein.
To establish such abaudonmenf, a
clear intention to waive separate right must be established.
From the 1n<:Tc fact that other members of the farnily were
allowed to use the property jointly with himself or that the
income of the separate property was utilised out of generosity
to support persons whom the holder was not bound to support
or from the failure to maintain separate accounts, abandonment
cannot be inferred for an act of generosity or kindness \Viii not
ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation.
Kak~onanu }lcda ,')ubbayya., v. Kakumanu
.4.kkanHna,
[1959J S. C.R. 1249, relied on.
CIVIL Al'PI>LLATE JunISllJCTlOS : Civil Appeal
No. 251 of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
October 21, 1955 of the former Andltra High Court
in A. S. No. 64 of 1951.
__
A. Rr,ng,maiulham Chetly, .tl. Vedr1 Vr1lli and
A. V. Ru1111ain, for the appellants.
B. ](, B. Nriidu, for the respondent.
1063. :\<larch 4. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SHAH J.-This appeal with certificate granted
by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is against the
decree in appeal ::-lo. (i4 of 1051 modifying the
decree in Snit No. 111
of 194!.l of the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah.
The following genealogy explains the relationship between the parties to the appeal :
•
'
\I
Lakkireddi Tirupati Reddy
__________ ! _________ _
I
I
I
Venkata Konda
Pedda Tirupelu
Chinna Tirupelu
I
Pedda
Venkata
(D-1)
Reddy
Reddy
Reddy
_____ 1 _____ 1
Bala konda
Pedda
1Butchi
Chinna Butchi
I
Reddy
Reddy
Reddy
I
Chinn a
I
Bala
I
Butchi Konda
=Venkatamma ·
Venkata
(D-2)
Venkata
(D-3)
=Lakshmama
(2nd pltff.)
!
I
Raju
Konda
(D-3)
I
Venkata
Ramireddy
(D-6)
(D-9)
I
I
Ram
Chandra
Reddy
(D-7)
Ram
Krishna
Reddy
(D-8)
I
Pulla Reddy
(1st pltff.)
I
Pullamma
t~-
c:/l
i
h
~
c;/l.
~-
"O'
:;:;: .
t,i:t :
s:.
t,i:t· ..
I
Cb
0
Venkata
c:::
Konda
:;:.:: :
(D-4)
•+
:::e
t,i:S,
'"<:I
Q;
~-·
t-;.
c:/l
....
...,_,
01
1963
Lalcli;irtt/4i CJumra
V111kota Rrtl.li
••
L4l1ciru/4i
l.a!.:sltm ....
SW. J.
..
i 76 SUPREME cot.JR T REPORts ll964] v6t.
Butchi Tirupati was one of the six sons of Bala
Konda.
Pulla Reddi and
Lakshmama-son and
widow
respectively of llutchi Tirupati-instituted
Suit No. 111 of 1!149 in the Court of the Subordinate
Judge, Cuddapah for partition and separate posses·
sion of their share in the
property of the joint
family to which they belonged and a fourth share in
certain
property devised under the will
ex~cuted
by Venkata Konda Reddy, on July 1, l!Jl 0.
Pulla
Reddy was at the date of the suit a minor and his
mother Lakshmama acted
as
his next
friend.
l'ulla Reddy died during the pendency ol the suit
and Lakshrnama was shown in the
record ;is his
legal representative for the suit.
The Trial Court
held that the property devised under the will of
Venkata Konda Reddy in favour of Pedda Venkata
(D-1), Chinna Venkata (D-2), Bala Venkata (D-!3)
and Butchi
Tirupati had on account of blending
with the joint family estate been impressed with the
character of joint family property, and on that
account Lakshmama was entitled to a fifth share in
all the property in suit. The High Court in appeal
awarded to Lakshmama a fourth share in the pro·
pcrty devised under the will of Venkata Konda Reddy
and confirmed the decree of the Trial Court awarding a fifth share in the property of the joint family.
Defendant·2 Chinna Venkata, Defendant-3 Raju
Konda and Defendant-4 Venkata Konda have ap·
pealed to this Court, with certificate under Art. 133 (1)
(a) granted by the High Court.
Two questions survive in this appeal :
(1) \\Thether Suit No. Ill of l!J4!) for partition
of joint family property could, after the
death of the minor Pulla Reddy,
be
continued by his mother Lakshmama. That
question
necessitates
an investigation
whether the suit was
instituted for the
benefit of the minor Pulla Reddy, because
it is settled law that the Court will not
2 s.c.k.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
177
grant a decree for partition of joint family
property in a suit institllted by a Hindu
minor through his next friend, unless the
Court is satisfied that the partition is likely
to be for the benefit of the minor by advan-
. cing or protecting his interest ; and
(2) Whether the property devised under the
will of Venkata Konda Reddy in favour
of defendants 1, 2, 5 and Butchi Tirupati
had, because of blending with their joint
family estate,
been impressed with the
character of joint family property.
We will set out such facts as have a bearing on
these questions.
It is common ground that at the date of his
death in 1947 Butchi Tirupati was a member of a
Hindu coparcenary
consi>ting of himself, his five
brothers and Pulla Reddy.
After the death of Butchi
Tirupati, defendants 1, 2, :J and 4 purported to partition the estate in their possession, and executed a
deed of partition (Ext. A-3) on August 12, 1948, in
which the minor Pulla Reddy was represented by the
fourth defendant.
By this deed certain properties
were allotted to the share of the first defendant Pedda
Venkata, but the deed was silent about the dissolution of the joint family qua other members of the
family, and about allotment of shares to those members.
Thereafter Lakshmama instituted the suit out
of which this appeal has arisen on behalf of herself
and as next friend of her minor son, for a decree for
partition of their share in the estate of the joint
family and the
property devised under the will of
Venkata Konda Reddy, alleging that defendants 2,
3 and 4 declined to give to the minor Pulla Reddy
his ~hare in the estate, and drove her and the minor
away from the family house, and that with a view
to prejudice the right of the minor in the property
they had brought into existence a deed of partition
1963
Ldkirufdi Chinna
V1nkata Redd,i
v.
lakkireddi
Lakshmama
Shoh J.
/9/i3
UAkirtdii Chiivi~
V 111.t•t• Rtiii
y,
L.UiitOMi
fAkJ/vnama
/kah J.
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
which did not disclose the entire estate of the joint
family.
The first defendant substantially admitted
the claim of the plaint i!Ts to a share in the properties
in suit. Defendants, :.!, :1 and 4 denied that the two
plaintiffs were driven
away from the joint family
house as alleged
hy
Lakshmama, and submitted
that it would be "highly prejudicial" to the interests
of Pulla Reddy to have his share separated from the
joint family estate.
They contended that the proper·
Ly of Venkata Kunda
Reddy had devolved by
survivorship on their father Bala Kunda and after
the death of Bala
Konda, his sons (defendants I
to 5 and Rutchi
Tirupati) took it by survivorship,
that the will executed by \'enkata Konda Reddy was
not
valid because it attempted to devise property
which belonged to the joint family, that in any event
the property devised under that will had been blended with the joint family estate and
had been
treated as of the joint family and on that footing
were included in the partition deed dated August 12,
l!H8, and that certain lands-itrrns l\os. Ii, 7 and ~
in the schedule annexed to the plain.t- had
bcc1;
given to Chinnamma sister of the contesting defrn·
dants for her maintenance and were not li3ble to be
partitioned.
The Trial Court held that partition of the pro·
perty of the joint family was for the benefit of the
minor Pulla Reddy and the High Court affirmed
that view.
The contentions raised in the written statement
filed by dr.fcndants 2, 3 and 4 dearly disclosr that
th~ co111inuancc of the joint family st~tus would be
prejudicial to the interest of the minor Pu Ila R~ddy.
They denied that certain items of property which
were found by the Court to be joint family pi operty
were of that character: they sought to set up titl~ of
their sister Chinnamma to certdin other proprrty. and
pleaded that the property devised under the will of
Venka1a Konda Reddy had ceased to be the separate
-
-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
179
property of the devisees. The evidence on the record
establishes that the contesting defehdants made it
difficult for Pulla Reddy and his mother Lakshmarna
to live in the joint family house. The deed dated
August 12, 1948 which included some and not all the
joint family property for the purpose of partition,
appeared also to be an attempt to create evidence
that the property set out in the deed was the only
estate of the joint family. It is true that normally
the family estate is better managed in union than in
division, nevertheless the interest of the minor is the
prime consideration in adjudging whether the estate
should be divided at the instance of a minor suitor.
If the conduct of the adult coparc.eners, or the claim
made by them is prejudicial to the interest of the
minor the Court will readily presume that it is for his
benefit to divide the estate. The conclusion recorded
by the Trial Court and the High Court that partition
would be for the benefit of,the minor was amply
supported by evidence. In the circumstances it is
unnecessary to express any opinion on the question
whether Lakshmama was entitled in her own ri~ht
to file a suit for a share in the property of the joint
family, and for the share of her husband Butchi
Tirupati in the estate devised under the will of
Venkata Konda Reddy and prosecute it after the
death of her son Pulla Reddy.
Action by a minor for a decre,e for partition
and separate possession of his share in the family
property is not founded on a caus.e of action personal
to him. The right claimed is iu propi:rty, and
devolves on his death even dnring minority upon his
legal representative. The Court, it is true, will dirrct
partition only if partition is in the interest of the
minor but that limitation arises not because of any
peculiarity in the estate of the minor but is imposed
for the protection of his interest· The effect of the
decision of the Court granting a decree for partition
jl) a s4it iqstiruted by a minor it μot t9 cre!!te a I)C)W
1963
Lakkfreddi Cfiinna
Venkat1 Rttlii
Vi
Lakki1etldi
Lakshmama
Shah J.
JYt3
laJ../cirult/i (;hirt11<1
V11rklltd Rtddi
Y.
Li1kkirtJJi
WshFMIU
Shoh J.
tso suPREME cotiRT ilEt>oRts [i964J vol.
right which the minor did not possess, but merely to
recognise the right which accrued to him when the
action was commenced.
It is the i11stitution of the
suit, subject to the decision of the CoLirl, and not the
decree of the Court that brings about the severance.
In Krikunumu l'eda
Suhbayyas v.
Kakunwnu
Akkmmna (1), it was held by this Court that a suit
filed on behalf of a Hindu minor for partition of joint
family properties does not on the death of the minor
during the pendency of the suit abate, and may be
continued by' his legal representative and decree
obtained therein if the Court holds that the institution of the suit was for the benefit of the minor.
Death of the minor Pulla Reddy during the pcndency
of the suit had not, therefore, on thr view ultimately
taken by the Court the effect of terminating the suit
which was instituted for partition of the property in
suit.
We may now consider the second question,
about the quantum of interest awardablc to Lakshmama in the property devised under the will of
Venkata Kanda Reddy.
Lakkireddi Tirupati had
three sons, Venkata Kunda Reddy, Pedda Tirupelu
Reddy and Chiona Tirupelu Reddy. Vcnkata Kanda
Reddy executed a will on July l, HHO devising in
favour of the four sons of his nephew Hala Kanda,
named, Pedda Venkata, Chinna Venkata, Bala
Venkata and Butchi Tirupati (who were born before
the date of the will), all his property which he
claimed to have received on partition between him
and
his
brothers.
Bala Kanda
instituted
on
July 2, 1910 suit No. 466of1910 in the Court of the
District Munsif, Proddatur for division of properties
which he claimed were jointly enjoyed by him and
his two uncles Vcnkata Konda Reddy and Chinna
Tirupclu Reddy. Under a decree dated June 26, 1911
passed in the suit with the consent of parties the
property in suit was divided into five shares one of
which was allotted to Bala Kanda . and the rest was
(I) (19~9] s. c. ll, 1249.
•
-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
181
taken in two equal moieties by his two uncles.
Venkata Konda Reddy died in 1915 and the property
which fell to his share by the compromise decree
devolved by virtue of the disposition under his will
on the four sons of Bala 'Konda. It is contended by
defendants 2, 3 and 4 that the property devised under
the will of Venkata Konda Reddy
became by
subsequent blending, property of the joint family,
and the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim a share
larger than the share they had in the joint family
property. It may be mentioned that defendants 3
and 4 were born after the date of Venkata Konda's
will, and they were not devisees under that will.
Law relating to blending, of separate property
withjoint family property is well-settled.
Property
separate or self-acquired of a member of a joint
Hindu family may be impressed with the character
of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by
the owner into the common stock with the intention
of abandoning his separate claim therein : but to
establish such abandonment a clear intention to
waive separate rights must be established. From
the mere fact that other members of the family were
allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or
-
that the income of the separate property was utilised
out of generosity to support persons whom the holder
was not bound to support, or from the failure to
maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be
inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness will
not ordinarily be regarded. as an admission of a lega I
obligation. It is true that Butchi Tirupati who was
one of the devisees under the will of Venkata Konda
Reddy was a member of the joint family consisting
of himself, his five brothers and his father Bala
Kanda. It is also true that there is no clear evidence
as. to how the property was dealt with, nor, as to the
appropriation .of the income thereof. 'But there is no
evidence on the record to show that by any conscious
11c;:t or e~ercise of volition Butchi Tirupati surrendfrecl
1963
La~kireddi Chinna
Y-et1kata Redd f,
v.
'(.,alr.kireddi'
Lakshmama
Shall J.
1963
Lallr.itttltli Chi11no
1't11),:tzla l,'trlai
v.
IM.kiruldl
L11k.thmmno
Shah J,
1963
Ma"il 4
-
is2 SUPREME cotJRt RtPoit'fs [1964] voL.
his interest in the property devised iu his favour
under the will or V cnkata Konda Reddy so as to
blend it with the joint family property. In the
absence of any such evidence, the High Court was,
in our judgment, right in holding that Lakshmama
was entitled to a fourth share in the property devised
under the will or Vcnkata Konda Reddy.
The appeal therefore
fails and is dismissed
with costs.
Appwl tli.~111·iBscd.
:'l:AfIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, M. HwAYA'ITLLAll and
J. c. SHAii JJ.)
Liff'.
ln,lfurance-Co1i..~tructiutt
uf
1':flalutc--C'u11ipu~itr.
inJurer-"Cvnlrolltd businP.1A"-Mcaniny and SCUjic -;f-If include.~ capilnl reckmptian ln~1°ntlfS 1Lntl annility cR.,ia£n husintssLife In.•urance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of J'J.)G) ss. ~. 7.
~fhc appellant company was iil.Ginitt1:J 1;:
••
co1npositc
insurer because it r.arricd on general in5· .. r~nc<e. bu1iness in
addition to the busineS> which fell within the definitio~ or controlled business. The company also carried 011 both capital
redemption businCS! and annuity ccr1ain
busin~ss which it
compendiously called capital obligation businc.•s.
By the operation of s. 7 (I) of the Life fnsnrance Corporation Act, 1956, all
the a~cts and liabilities
appertainirr~ to
the
"-.~ontrollcd
business" of all insnrers were transferrcrl. to 1 and ''~tcd in the
Life lnsura1lcc Corporation front
the 'appointed day'.
In
pursuance of this provision the I.ife Insurance Corporation took
over the life insurance Uusincss
1 ! the appellant company.
Dispute arose between the parties as to \VJ.at pOlrt or 1hc business
of the appellant cornpany vests in the Corpc.ration and what
are the assets of the business. The appellant comp•ny r.ontended
•