LEADING CASES HINDU LAW

HINDU LAW 

CHAPTER-17

• LEADING CASES. 

(i) Appovier v. Ramasubbien

(ii) Devaki Nandan v. Muralidhar 

(iii) Tulasamma v. Seshareddi                   

(iv) Hemraj v. Khemchand

LEADING CASES.

(i) Appovier V. Ramasubbien (Privy Council).

A Joint family consisting of six coparceners executed a deed: 

1. They divided three properties named A,B,C, into six parts by metes and bounds ie, each took 1/6 share. 
2. In respect of a moiety in the villages they decided to divide into 6 shares of the. produce every year. 

The deed further stated , that there was no interest in each other’s effects and debts, except friendship between them. 

The question was whether this was a partition, even though villages were not divided by metes and bounds. 

Held: 

There was partition. 

Joint tenancy is converted into tenancy in common. 

Hence, division by metes and bounds was not essential in respect of villages. 

Lord Westbury stated : 

According to true notion of an undivided family in Hindu Law, no member of that family, while it remains undivided, can predicate of the Joint & undivided property, that he that particular member, has a definite share. 

Hence, “Vibhaga” or partition is a severance of the status, and, there will be partition when intention is expressed unequivocally. The ratio of this decision is followed in: 

Raghavamma V. Kenchamma (SC) 

Puttarangamma V. Ranganna (SC) 

Kalyani V. Narayanan (SC) 

(ii) Devaki Nandan V. Muralidhar. 

An endowment had been made in favor of an Idol. Thepublic were visiting & worshipping without interference. The “Prathishta” ceremony had been performed. The question was whether the temple was private or public. 

Held : the beneficiaries in private temple are specific;but they . are incapable of ascertainment in public temple. 

As per the facts proved, it was clear that the public were having free access, & were the beneficiaries. Held, the temple was public. 

(iii) Tulasamma V. Sesha Reddy (S.C.1977). 

In this case, the supreme court overruled its earlier decision: 

Narain Devi V. Rama Devi (1976). 

It examined in detail the scope of Sn.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, and the inter-relationship between Sn 14(1) & (2). 

Facts: Tulasamma’s husband venkatasubba Reddy expired in (1931, when he had joint status with his step-brother Sesha Reddy.filed a suit against Sesha Reddy for maintenance in 1941 & it was decreed exparte. 

At the execution stage, there was a compromise & certain properties were allotted to her but without any power of alienation., 

In 1960, she alienated certain properties. Sesha Reddy filed a suit for declaration that the alienation was not valid & that he was not bound by it after T’s death. 

T claimed that under Sn.14 she had become absolute owner of the property. The supreme court held

1. As T got the property in lieu of her maintenance, and as she was in possession, she became the absolute owner & hence, has the right to alienate. 
2. Sn.l4(2) had a limited scope. It applied only when the female Hindu got the property for the first time as under a gift, will decree, order or award, with a restriction thereof. But, when the female get a property under a pre-existing right, Sn. 14(2) could not control Sn.l4(l). If it is allowed to control, Sn.l4(l) will become meaningless, and the very objective of abolishing widow’s limited estate would be defeated. 
3. (iii) As such, T became absolute owner & her alienation of property was valid. 

This decision was followed by Supreme Court in Vajia v. Thakur Bhai (1979) 

(iv)  Hanuman Prasad v. Boboe. 

The question for consideration in this case was the authority of Mother, as manager of the properties of her minor son to mortagage the properties. 

The facts were that H was the minor son of B. B made certain transfers of ancestral properties of the minor. H, Challenged the transfer on the ground that the no authority to transfer or alienate. The court held that alienation was without authority and it set aside the transfer.