# PUTI'ARANGAMMA & 2 ORS v. M. S. RANGANNA & 3 ORS

- **Citation:** [1968] 3 S.C.R. 119
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-02-08
- **Case number:** CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1965
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/puti-arangamma-2-ors-v-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-4267
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Hindu Law-Joint family-Unilateral decalration to separate-Communicated to other members of family-Declaration withdrawn-Efiect.
The karta of a joint Hindu family fell ill. He had no male issue and
in order to safeguard the interests of the appellant and fourth respondent,
who were his daughters, he issued regfat.:ered notices to the other member. of the jont family declaring his unequivocal intention to separate
from them. Later, he decided to withdraw the llDtices and instructed
the poolal authorities not to forward them, but,. the unequivocal declaration of his intention to separate was conveyed to the other members
of the joint family and they had full knowl«lge of such intention.
A
few days thereafter he instituted a suit for partition and possession of
his share of the property. The plaint was prepared by a responsible
advocate, who explained the contents to the plaintiff (the karta), who
was conscious and in full possession of his mental faculties, had his thumb
impression affixed on the plaint and Vakalatnama. signed them both and
had thdm filed in court.
After the suit was filed. on the same day, the
plaintiff died.
.
The trial court decreed .l!he suit, but the High Oourt, in appeal, reversed tho decree.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : The mere withdrawal of the plaintiff's unilateral declaration _of intention to sq>arate, which already bad resulted in hls division
in ·status because of the communication of the intention to the other members, did llDt nullify its effect so as to restore the family to its original
joint status, or amount to an agreem~nt to reunite; and lthe appellant and
the fourth respondent, as the legal representatives of the plaintiff, were
entitled to the decree. (126 G-H; 127 A-B; 129 DJ
Radlwkrishna v. Satyanarayana, (1948) 2 M.L.J. 331, approved.
CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 322 of
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 5;
1960 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 81 of
1956.
A. K. Sen and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the aJ>Pellants.
H. R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhri;
for respondent No. 1.

## Text

A
•
c
D
r
F
G
H
PUTI'ARANGAMMA & 2 ORS.
v.
M. S. RANGANNA & 3 ORS.
February 8, 1968
(J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Hindu Law-Joint family-Unilateral decalration to separate-Communicated to other members of family-Declaration withdrawn-Efiect.
The karta of a joint Hindu family fell ill. He had no male issue and
in order to safeguard the interests of the appellant and fourth respondent,
who were his daughters, he issued regfat.:ered notices to the other member. of the jont family declaring his unequivocal intention to separate
from them. Later, he decided to withdraw the llDtices and instructed
the poolal authorities not to forward them, but,. the unequivocal declaration of his intention to separate was conveyed to the other members
of the joint family and they had full knowl«lge of such intention.
A
few days thereafter he instituted a suit for partition and possession of
his share of the property. The plaint was prepared by a responsible
advocate, who explained the contents to the plaintiff (the karta), who
was conscious and in full possession of his mental faculties, had his thumb
impression affixed on the plaint and Vakalatnama. signed them both and
had thdm filed in court.
After the suit was filed. on the same day, the
plaintiff died.
.
The trial court decreed .l!he suit, but the High Oourt, in appeal, reversed tho decree.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : The mere withdrawal of the plaintiff's unilateral declaration _of intention to sq>arate, which already bad resulted in hls division
in ·status because of the communication of the intention to the other members, did llDt nullify its effect so as to restore the family to its original
joint status, or amount to an agreem~nt to reunite; and lthe appellant and
the fourth respondent, as the legal representatives of the plaintiff, were
entitled to the decree. (126 G-H; 127 A-B; 129 DJ
Radlwkrishna v. Satyanarayana, (1948) 2 M.L.J. 331, approved.
CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 322 of
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 5;
1960 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 81 of
1956.
A. K. Sen and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the aJ>Pellants.
H. R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhri;
for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J, This appeal is brought by certificate from the
judgment of the Mysore High Court dated December 5, 1960 in
R. A. No. 81 of 1956.
120
SUPlll!Ml! COUllT IU!POl.TS
(1968) 3 S.C.R.
The appellants and respondent No. 4 are the daughters and
legal representatives of Savoy Rauganna who was the plaintiff in
O.S. 34 of 1950-51 instituted in the court of the District Judge,
Mysore. The suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff for partition
of his share in the 11roperties mentioned in the schedule to the
plaint and for granting him separate possession of the same.
Respondent No. 1 is the brother's son of the Plaintiff. The rela·
B
tionship of the parties would awear from the following pedigree :
R..i I AlaJnma (Deft. 2)
(Died 45
I
.
years ""')
Dodd& il.,.pmma
(Deft. 2 (a)
I
I
Kenchanna (Suppl.
Def).
I
Savoy Ranganna (S"
I
Savoy Ranpnna
(plaintiff)
Chikka l.Ran1•tnma
Puita il.n..mma
(Deft. 3)
(!st L. R. of
plaintiff)
(2nd L. R. of
plaintiff)
I
ChillaRa-
(Diod in 1947\
I
M. S. R. Ranpnna, 3
(Deft. I)
lakkamma
(D. W.10)
Chinnathayamma
(3rd I. p •. of
plaintiff)
c
E
The case of the plaintjlf was that he and the defendants livea
together as members of a Joint Hindu family till January 7, 1951,
plaintiff being the karta. The plaintiff had no male issue but had
only four daughters, Chikka Rangamma, Putta Rangamma,
Rangathayamml! . l!Jld Chinnathay;unma.
The first 2 daughters
r
were widows. The fourth daughter Chinnathayamma was living
with her husband. Except Chinnathayamma, the other daughters
with their families had been living with the joint family.
The
plaintiff became ill and entered 'Sharda Nursing Home' for treat·
ment as an in-patient on January 4, 1951. In order to safeguard
the interests of his daughters the plaintiff, Savoy Ranianna issued
G
a notice on January 8, 1951 to the defend:mts ~cl~ring his unequivocal intention to separate from them.
After the notices were
registered at the post office certain well-wishers of die famify intervened and wanted to bring about a settlement. On their advice
and request the plaintiff n_otified to the post office ti)at he intended
to withdraw the registered notices. But as no agreement could
8
be subsequently reached between the parties the plaintiff instituted
the present suit on January 13. 1951 for partition of his share of
the joint family properties. The suit was contested mainly by
1
A
B
c
D
,
E
F
G
ff
PUTTAll.ANGAMMA V. RANGANNA (Ramaswami, J.)
121
respondent no. 1 who alleged that there was no separation . of
status either because of the notice of January 8, 1951 or because
of the institution of the suit.on January 13, 1951.. J'he case of
respondent no. 1 was that Savoy Ranganna was 85 years. of age
and .in a weak state of health and was not in a position to understand the contents.of the plaint or to affix his. signatμre or thwnb
impression thereon as well as on the. Vakalatnama.
As regards
the notice of January 8, 1951, respondent no. 1 asserted that there
w•s no communication o( any such notice to him and, in any case,
the notices were withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna unconditionally
from the post office. It was therefore contended that there was no
disruption of the joint family at the time of the death of Savoy Ranganna and the appellants were not entitled to a decree for partition
as legal representatives of Savoy Ranganna. Upon the examination of the evidence adduced in the case the trial court held that
Savoy Ranganna had properly affixed his thumb impression on
the plaint and the V akalatnama and the presentation of the plaint
was valid.
The trial court found that Savoy RanganJ!a was not
dead by the time the plaipt was presented. On the question whe- .
ther Savoy Ranganna was separate in status the trial court held
that the notices dated January 8, 1951 were ·a clear and unequivocal declaration of the intention of savoy Ranganna .to become
divided in status and there was sufficient communication of that
intention to respondent no .. 1 and other members of the family.
The trial court was also of the opinion that· anhe time of the issue
of the notices dated January 8, 1951 and at the time of execution
of the plaint and the Vakalatnama dated January 13, 1951 Savoy
Ranganna was in a sonnd state ·of mind and conscious of the consequences of the action he was taking. The trial court accordingly
granted a decree in favour of the appellants.
Respondent no. I
took the matter in appeal to the Mysore High Court which by its
judgment dated December 5, 1960 reversed the decree of the trial
court <llld allowed the appeal. Hegde, J. one of the members of
the Bench held that the suit could ·not be said to have been instituted by Savoy Ranganna as it was not proved that Savoy Ranganna executed the plaint As regards the validity of the notice
Ex. A, and as to whether it caused any disruption in the joint
family status, Hegde, J; did not think it necessary to express any
opinion. The other member of the Bench, Mir. Iqbal Husain, J.
held that the joint family of which the deceased Savoy Ran)!al!na
was a member had not been disrupted by the issue of the notice
dated January 8, 1951. The view taken by Mir Iqbal Husain, J.
was that there was no prQOf that the notice was communicated
either to respondent no. 1 or other members of the family and,
in any event, the notice had been withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna
and so there was no severance of joint status from the date of the
notice.
USup.C.1168-9
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968} 3 S.C.R.
The first question to be considered in this appeal is whether
Savoy Ranganna died as a divided member of the joint family as
alleged in the plaint. It is admitted that Savoy Ranganna was
very old, about 85 years of age and was ailing of chronic diarrhoea.
He was Jiving in the family house tili January 4, 1951 when he
was removed to the Sharda N~rsing Home where hJ: died on
January 13, 1951 at 3 p.m. According to the case of respondent
no. 1 Savoy Ranganna had a paralytic stroke m 1950 and was
completely bed-ridden thereafter and his eyesight was bad for 5 to
6 years prior to his death.
It was alleged in the written statement. that Savoy Ranganna was unconscious for some days prior
to .his death. The case of respondent no. 1 on this ~int is disproved by the evidence of D.W. 6, Dr. Venkata Rae. who was in
charge of the Sharda Nursing Home on the material dates. This
witness admitted that the complaint of Savoy Ranganna was that
he was suffering from chronic diarrhoea for over five months. He
was anaemic but he was not suffering from any attack of paralysis.
As regards the condition of Savoy Ranganna on January 8, 1951,
the evidence of P.W. 1,.Dr. Subbaramiah is important. This witness is the owner of the Sh.arda Nursing Home and he has testified
that the notice Ex. A was read over to Savoy Ranganna and after
. getting it read the latter affixed his thumb mark thereon. The
witness asked Savoy Ranganna whether he was able to understand
the contents of the notice and the latter replied in the affirmative.
The witness has certified on the notice, Ex. A-1 that Savoy Ran-
~anna was conscious when he affixed his left thumb mark to the
notice in his presence. No reason was suggested on behalf of the
respondents why the evidence of this witness should be disbelieved.
The trial court was highly impressed by the evidence
of this witness and we see no reason fcir taking a different .view.
The case of the appellants is that respondent no. 1 had knowledge
of the notice, Ex. A because he was present in the Nursing Home
on January 8, 1951 and he tried to snatch away the notice from
the hands of P.W. 1 but he was prevented from so doing. P.W. 5.
Chinnanna stated in the course of the evidence that after P .W. 1
had signed the certificate in all the three copi.es, respondent no. 1
and one Halappa came to the .ward and tried to snatch away the
notices.
The first respondent tried to snatch away the
copy Ex. A-1 that was in the hands. of Dr. Subbaramiah and
attempted to tear it. Dr. Subbaramian somehow prevented respondent no. 1 from taking away Ex. A and handed it over to
P.W. -5.
The evidence of P.W. 5 with regard to the "snatching
incident" is corroborated by Dr. Subbaramiah who stated that after
Savoy Ranganna had executed the notices and he had signed the
certificates, one or two persons came and tried to snatch ~e document. P .W. 1 is unable .to identify the first respondent ·as one of
the persons who had taken part in the "snatching incident". The
circumstance that P.W. 1 was unable to identify respondent no. 1
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
/
PUTTARANGAMMA v. RANGANNA (Ramaswami, !.)
123
is not very material, because the inc111ent took place about. three
years before he .i:ave evidence in the court, but his evidence with
regard ·10 the "snatching incident" strongly corroborates the allegation of ·P.W. 5 that it was res[lj)ndent no. 1 who had come into
the Nursing Home and attempted to snatch the notice. There is
also another circ~ce which supports the case of the appellants that respondent no. 1 had knowledge of the contents of Ex. A
and of the unequivocal intention of Savoy Rangann'l to ~come
divided in status from the joint family. According to P.W. 5 respondent no. 1 and his Wife and mother yisited Savoy Ranganna
in the Nursing Home later on and pressed him. t<J withdraw the
notices promising that the matter will be amicably settled. Sowcar
T. Thammanna also intervened on their behalf. Thereafter the
deceased plaintiff fastructed.his grandson P.W. 5 to withdraw the
notice.
Accordingly P.W. 5 prepared two applications for the
withdrawal and presented them to the postal authorities.
The
notice, Ex. A meant for the first respondent and Ex. E meant for
the original second defendant were ~thheld by the postal authorities.
These notices were produced in court by the postal authorities during the hearing of the_case. In our opinion, the evidence
of P .W. 5 must be accepted as true, because it is corroborated
by the circumstance that the two notices, Bxs. A and E were intercepted in the post office and did not reach their destination. This
circumstance also indicates that though there was no formal communication of the notice, Ex. A to the first respondent, he had
sufficient knowledge of the contents of that notice and was fully
aware of the clear and unequivocal intention of Savoy Ranganna
to become separate from other members Qf the joint f!!ffiily.
It is now a settled doctrine of Hindu Law that a member of a
joint Hindu family can b,ring about his separation in status by a
definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his intention to
separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty.
It is not necessary that there should be an agreement between all
t~e ~oparceners for the disruption of the joint status. It is immatenal m such a. case whether the other copareeners give their a5sent
to the separation or not. The jural basis of this doctrine has been
expounded by the early writers of Hindu Law. The relevant portion of the commentary of Vijna!'eswara ~tates as follows :
"<:i"ll'f ""''""''"; imrf<: \If'!~"! f<raf<: fir'i!Frl1" arf;i'"""1!f'I' <ra~
qi;! l+f~~oq f'ftWft \TCffu'"
..
'
"'
[And thus though the mother is having her menstrual
H
courses (has not lost the capacity to bear children) and
the father ha!! attachme!lt and does not desire a partition,
yet by the will (or desire) of the son a partition of 'he
grandfather's wealth does take place]"
·
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968) 3 S.C.R.
Saraswathi Vilasa, placitum 28 states :
"~ m'lit 'ff"11\rt ITTr «"'~If f"'1Jlr f<ff~: I
'l'IT'!f'Om"'R"f'!; ~fim
lio;ii'lql~l~~f<f 11"
[From this it is known that without any speech (or
explanation) even by means of a determination (or
resolution) only, partition is effected, just an appointed
daughter is
constituted by mere intention without
speech.)"
Viramitrodaya of Mitra Misra (Ch. II. pl. 23) is to the follow·
ing effect:
"<ll"l'I' 'f'f~ rit ;;ft;rf~ 4•'11.,"l"fail1•i: ~ ~f<r 'll'l<ll'·
•
f""1>rra 1 "
'
[Here too there is no distinction between a partition
during the lifetime of the father or after his death and
A
B
c
partition at the desire of the sons may take place oc
D
even by the desire (or ·at the will) of a single ( oopar·
c.ener) ]."
Vyavahara Mayukha of Nilakantabhatta also states :
"•oq1t1q.1'41q1tlfq mf~ f'l"l!'Rr mr oq•*"IMlf"lfir 'lfm ~: I
~f.rfan1<1qt~i14 f~ f'f'llT'l': Ii ~qlf'liilfs.,44 ~
II"
. [Even. in the absence of any common (joint family)
property, severance does indeed result by the mere declaration 'I am separate from thee' because severance is
a particular state (or condition) of the mind and the
declaration is merely a manifestation of this mental. state
(or condition).]" (Ch: IV, S. iii-I).
· Emphasis is laid on the "budhi visesha" (particular state or condi·
ti on of the mind) as the decisive factor in producing a severance
in status and the-declaration is stated to be merely "abhivyanjika"
or manifestation which might vacy according to ciroumstances; In
Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain(1) the Judicial Committee made the
following categorical statement of the legal position :
"A definite and unambiguous indication by one member of intention to separate himself and to enjoy his
share in severalty may amount to separation. But to
have that effect the intention must be unequivocal and
clearly expressed .......... Suraj Narain alleged that
he separated a few months later; there is, however, no
(I) J.L.R. 35 All. 80. (P.C.)
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUTTARANGAMMA v. RANGANNA (Ramaswami, J.)
125
writing in support of his allegation, nothing to show
that at that time he gave expression to an unambiguous
intention on his part to cut himself off from the joint
undivided family."
In a later case-Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj(') the Judicial
Committee examined the relevant texts of Hindu Law and referred
to the well-marked distinction that exists in Hindu law between
a severance in status so far as the separating member is concerned
and a de facto division into specific shares of the property held
until then jointly, and laid down the Jaw as follows :
"One is a matter of individual decision, the d.esire on
the part of any one member to sever himself from the
joint family and to enjoy his hitherto undefined or unspecified share separ~tely from the others without being
subject to the obligations which arise from the joim
status; whilst the other is the natural resultant from his
decision, the division. and separation of his share which
may be arrived at either by private agreement among the
parties, or on failure of that, by the intervel)tion of the
Court.
Once the decision has been unequivocally expressed and clearly intimated to his co-sharers, his right
to his right to have his share allocated separately from
has a title is unimpeachable; neither the co.-sharers can
question it nor can the Court examine his conscience
to find out whether his reasons for separation were wellJounded or sufficient; the Court has simply to give effect
to his right to have his share allocated separately from
the others."
In Syed Kasam v. Jorawar Singh( 2 ), Viscount Cave, in delivering
the judgment of the Judicial Committee, observed :
"It is settled law that in the case of a joint Hindu
family subject to the Jaw of the Mitakshara, a severance
of estate is effected by an unequivocal declaration on
the part of one. of the joint holders of his intention to
hold his share separately, even though no actual division takes place : and the commencement of a suit for
partition has been held to be sufficient to effect a severance in interest even before decree."
These authorities were quoted '*ith approval by this Court in
Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma( 3 ), and it was
hel!I tl1at a member of a joint Hindu family seeking to separate
himself from others will have to make known his intention to Other
members of his family from whom he seeks to separate.
The
(I} l.L.R. 43 Cal. 1031. (P.C.)
(2) l.L.R. SO Cal. 84. (P.C).
(3) (1964] 2 S.C.R. 933.
126
SUPUMB ()()Ul.T UPOl.TS
[1968} 3 S.C.R.
correct legal position therefore is that in a case of a joint Hindu
family subject to Mitaksbara law, severance Qf status is effected
by an unequivocal declaration on the part of one of the jointholders of his intention to hold the. share SCJl!lrafely. It is, however, necessary that the member Of the joint Hindu family seeking
to separate himself must make known his intention to other membel'S of the family from whom he seeks tp SCQ~ate. The process
of communication may, however, vary in the circumstances of
each particular case.
It is not necessary that there should be a
formal despatch to or receipt by other members of the family of
the communication announcing the intention to divide on the part
of one member of the joint family. The proof of such a despatch
or receipt of . the colll!!lunication is not essential, nor its absence
fatal to the severance of the status. It is, of course, necessary
that the declaration to be effective should reach the person or
persons affected by some process appropriate to the given sitwition
and circumstances of the particular case. Applying this principle to
the facts found in the present case, we are of opinion that there
was a definite and unequivocal declaration of his intention to separate on the part of Savoy Ranganna and that intention was conveyed to respondent no. l and other members 9f the joint famliy
and respondent no. 1 had full knowledge of the intention of Savoy
Ranganna.
It follows therefore that there was a division of status
of Savoy Ranganna from the joint Hindu family with effect from
January 8; 1951 which was the date of the notice.
It was, however, maintained on behalf of the respondents that
on January 10, 1951 Savoy Ranganna had decided to .withdraw
the two notices, Exs. A & E and he instructed the postal authorities
not to forward the notices to respondent no. l and other members
of the joint family.
It was contended that there could be no
severance of the joint family after Savoy Ranganna had decided to
withdraw the notices. In our opinion, there fa no warrant for
this argument. As we have already stated, there was a unilateral
declaration of an intention by Savoy Ranganna to divide from the
joint family and there was sufficient communication of this intention to the other coparceners and therefore in law there was in
consequence a disruption or division of the status of the joint
family with effect from January 8, 1951. When once a communication of the intention is made which has resulted in the severance of the joint family status it was not thereafter open to Savoy
Ranganna to nullify its effect so as to restore the family to its
original joint status. If the intention of Savoy Raugauna had stood
alone without giving rise to any legal effect, it could; of course,
be withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna, but having communicated the
intention, the divided status of the Hindu joint family had already
come into exi~tence and the legal consequences had taken effect.
It was not, therefore, possible for Savoy Ranganna to get back
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUTTARANGAMMA v. RANGANNA (R.amaswami, }.)
127
to the old position by mere revocation of the intention. It is, of
course, possible for the members of the family by a subsequent
agreement to reunite, but the mere withdrawal of the unilateral
declaration of the intention to separate which already had resulted
in the division in status cannot amount to an agreement to reunite.
It should also be stated that the question whether there was a
subsequent agreement'between the members to reunite is a question
of fact to be proved as such, In the present case, there is no
allegation in the written statement nor is there any evidence on
the· part of the respondents that there was any such agreement to
reunite after January 8, 1951. The view that we have expressed
is borne out by the decision of the Madras High Court in Kurapati
Radhakrishna v. Kurapati Satyanarayana(') in which there was a
suit for declaration that the sales in respect of certain family properties did not bind the plaintiff and for partition of his share and
possession thereof and the plaint referred to an earlier suit for
partition instituted by the 2nd defendant in the later suit. It was
alleged in that suit that 'the plaintiff being unwilling to remain with
the· defendants has decided to become divided and he has filed
this suit for separation of his one-fifth share in the assets remaining
after discharging the family debts separated. and for recovery of
possession of the same'.
All the defendants in that suit were
served with the summons and on the death of the 1st defendant
therein after the settlement of issues, the..,Jaintiff in that action
made the following endorsement on the plamt : "As the 1st defendant has died and as the plaintiff had to manage the family, the
plaintiff hereby revokes the intention to divide expressed in the
plaint and agreeing to remain as a joint family meniber, he withdraws the suit.' It was held by the Madras High Court that a
division in status had already been brought about by the plaint in
the suit and it was not open to the plaintiff to. revoke or withdraw
the unambiguous intention to separate contained in the plaint so
as to restore the joint status and as such the members should
be treated as divided members for the purpose of working out their
respective rights.
We proceed to consider the next question arising in this appeal
whether the plaint filed on January 13, 1951 was validly executed
by Savoy Ranganna and whether he had affixed his thumb impression thereon after understanding its contents. . The case of the
appellants is that Sri M. S. Ranganathan prepared the plaint and
had gone to the Sharda Nursing Home at about 9-30 or 10 a.m.
on January 13, 1951. Sri Ranganathan wrote out the plaint which
was in English and translated it to Savoy Ranganna who approved
the same.
P.W. 2, the clerk of Sri Ranganathan has deposed to
this effect.
He took the ink-pad and affixed the left thumb impression of Savoy Ranganna on the plaint and also on the Vakalatnama.
There is the attestation of Sri M. S. Ranganathan on the
(ff{f948) 2 M.LJ. 331.
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
LI 968].3 S.C.R.
plaint and on the Vakalatnarna .. The papers were handed over to
P.W. 2 who after purchasing the necessary court-fee stamps filed
the plaint and the Vakalatnama. in the court at about 11.30 a.m.
or 12 noon on. the same day.
The evidence of P.W. 2 is corroborated by P.W. 5 Chinnanna. tounsef on behalf of the respondents, however, criticised the evidence of P.W. 2 on the grou11d
that the doctor, D.W. 6 had said that the mental condition of the
patient was bad and he was not able Jo understand thfugs when he
examined him on the morning of January 13, 1951.
D.W. 6
deposed that he examined Savoy Ranganna during his usual rounds
on January 13, 1951 between 8 and 9 a.m. and found "his pulse
imperceptible and the ·sounds of the heart feeble". On the question as to whether Savoy Ranganna was sufficiently conscious to
execute the plaint and the Vakalatnama, the trial court has accepted the evidence of P.W. 2, Keshavaiah in preference to that of
D.W. 6.
We see no reason for differing from the es!imate of the
trial court with regard. to the evidence of P. W. 2.
The trial court
has pointed out that it is difficult to accept the evidence of D.W. · 6
that Savoy Ranganna was not conscious on the morning of January 13, 1951. In cross-examination D.W. 6 admitted that on the
night of January 12, 1951 Savoy Ranganna was conscious.
He
further admitted that on January 13, 1951 he prescribed the same
medicines to Savoy Ranganna as he had prescribed on January 12,
I 951.
There is no note of the necessi\!:Y data in the case sheet,
Ex. I to suggest that Savoy Ranganna was not conscious on Janu~
ary 13, 1951. It is therefore not unreasonable assume that the
condition of Savoy Ranga11na was the same on January 13, 1951
as on January 12, 1951 and there was no perceptible change
noticeable in his condition between the two dates. In these circumstances it is not possible to accept the evidence of D.W. 6
that Savoy Ranganna was unconscious on the morning of January
13, 1951. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that
D.W. 7, Miss Arnold has also given evidence that the condition of
Savoy Ran_ganna became worse day by day and on the last day his
condition was very bad and he could not understand much, nor
could he respond to her calls. The trial court was not impressed
with the evidence of this witness.
In our opinion, her
evidence suffers from the same infirmity as of D.W.
6,
because the cas·e sheet, Ex. I does not corroborate her evidence.
It is also difficult to believe that D.W. 7 could remember the details
of Savoy Ranganna's case after a lapse of three years without the
help of any written case sheet.
There is also an important discrepancy in the evidence of D.W. 7. She said that on January 13,
1951 she called D.W. 6 at 12 noon since the r.ondition of the
patient was very bad, but D.W. 6 has said that he did not visit
Savoy Ranganna after 8 or 9 a.m. on that date. Comment was
made by Counsel on behalf of the respondents that Sri Ranganathan was not examined as a witness to prove that he had prepared
8
c
D
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
PUTTARANGAMMA V. RANGANNA (Ramaswami, J.)
129the plaint and Savoy ,Ranganna bad ~ed his tJiumb impression
in his presence. In our opinion, the omission of Sri Ranganathan
to give evidence in this case is unfortunate. It would have been
proper conduct on his PS!t if J1e_- had returned the brief of the
appellants and given evidence in the case' as to the execution of the
plaint and the V akalatnama.
But ~ spite of this circumstance
we consider that the evidence of the appellants on this aspect of
the case must be accepted as true. It is necessary to notice that
the plaint and the Vakalatnania are both counter-signed by Sri
Ranganathan---a responsible Advocate-and it is not likely that
he would subscribe his signatures to. these documents if they had
been executed by a person who was unable to understand the contents thereof.
As we have already said, it is unfortunate that the
Advocate Sri Ranganathan has not been· examined as a witness,
but in spite of this omission we are satisfied that the evidence
adduced in the case has established that Savoy Ranganna validly
executed the plaint and the Vakalatnama and that he was conscious and was in full possession of his mental faculties at the time
of the execution of these two documents. It follows
therefore
that the appellants and respondent no. 4 who are the daughters
and legal representatives of Savoy Ranganna are entitled to a decree
in the terms granted by the District Judge of Mysore.
For the reasons expressed, we hold that this appeal should be·
allowed, the judgment of t!te Mysore High Court dated December
5, 1960 in R.A. no. 81 of 1956 should be set aside and that of
the District Judge, Mysore dated October 31, 1955 in 0.S. no. 34
of 1950-51 should be restored.
The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed ..