Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh v. Mallappa Chanbasappa, AIR 1964 SC 510

Citation	1964 AIR 510, 1964 SCR (4) 497
Date of Judgement	19 August, 1963
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Civil Litigation
Appellant	Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa and Another
Respondent	Malappa
Bench	K. Subbarao, K. Dayal, RaghubarMudholkar, J.R.
Referred	Hindu Law

FACTS OF THE CASE

On January 8, 1944, Chanbasappa passed away, leaving three wives: Nagamma, Guramma, and Venkamma. Additionally, he had two daughters from his late wife, Sivalingamma and Neelamma, who were both widows. One of his wives, Venkamma, is said to have been pregnant at the time of his death and given birth to a boy on October 4, 1944. Chanbasappa carried out a number of acts just before he passed away on January 8, 1944. In favour of his wife, a widowed daughter, a son of an illegitimate son, and a relative, he performed gift and maintenance deeds. Chanbasappa also signed two papers, one for maintenance and the other as a gift of some property, in favour of Nagamma (the senior-most widow). Nagamma adopted Malappa, her sister’s kid, on January 30, 1944.

The division of Chanbasappa’s estate was the subject of a legal battle after his passing. One of the widows, Nagamma, filed a civil lawsuit for the division of the property and the ownership of her one-sixth interest. Additionally, she aimed to erase the alienations that her husband Chanbasappa had committed on January 4 and 5. The legality of the adoption of Malappa, the presence of a posthumous son (defendant 4) born to Venkamma, and the legality of Chanbasappa’s alienations were the main concerns in the case.

The trial court determined that Nagamma legally adopted Malappa, but it also determined that defendant 4 (born to Venkamma) was Chanbasappa’s posthumous son. The trial court ruled that Chanbasappa’s alienations in favour of defendants 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were legitimate. It gave Defendants 1 and 2 each a sixth portion of the property, Nagamma a sixth share, and Defendant 4 a third share. Additionally, the court ordered a probe into potential mesne earnings. Malappa, the adopted son, and Nagamma, the petitioner, both appealed to the High Court. The High Court upheld Malappa’s adoption as legal. The alienations made by Chanbasappa in favour of defendants 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were ruled to be invalid by the High Court. It stipulated that these properties be added to the hotchpot (common pool) in order to be divided. The High Court decided that Nagamma, defendants 1 and 2, were entitled to 4/27 of the total shares, Malappa, entitled to 1/9 of the whole shares, and defendant 4 entitled to 4/9 of the total shares.

The Petitioners (Nagamma & Malappa) appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s judgment with respect to the remaining issues.

ISSUE

-The Supreme Court’s main concern was the legality of Nagamma, one of Chanbasappa’s widows, adopting Malappa. The adoption’s validity was disputed, and the court had to decide whether it was legitimate in accordance with Hindu law.

-Another important issue was the existence of defendant 4, a posthumous son born to one of Chanbasappa’s wives Venkamma after his passing. If defendant 4 was in fact Chanbasappa’s posthumous son, the court had to prove it.

-The case involved a number of alienations that Chanbasappa committed in favour of numerous people, including his wives and relations. The issue before the court was whether or not these alienations were legitimate and binding and should be overturned.

-The division of Chanbasappa’s estate was the main issue in contention. Considering the legality of the adoption, the presence of a posthumous son, and the legality of the alienations, the court had to assess the parties’ respective shares in the joint family property.

-Hindu law needed to be interpreted in this instance, notably in regard to adoption, inheritance, and the authority of a joint Hindu family manager. Based on Hindu law sources and traditions, the court is required to define the legal rules that apply to the case.

-The case additionally sparked debate over Sudra customs in the Bombay Presidency regarding the distribution of an adoptive son’s portion versus a son born naturally. The question of whether local customs adhered to Hindu law or strayed from it had to be decided by the court.

ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s attorney made the argument that defendant 3’s adoption was invalid since defendant 4 was conceived at the time of the adoption as discussed in Dattaka Chandrika & Dattaka Mimansa. The advice was based on the Mimansa books Atri and Cankha of Nanda Pandita. “By a man destitute of a son only must a substitute for the same be adopted,” the texts stated. Le, an adoption cannot be finalized until it is assured that a son will not be born. The phrase “destitute of a son” must be taken to encompass a son’s sort and grandchild, according to Nanda Pandita. Adoption’s secondary goal of securing an heir to carry on the adopter’s name is secondary to its primary goal of securing the adopter’s spiritual gain. It further argued that when determining the share between an adopted son and a natural son, the Bombay presidency follows Vyavahara Mayukha rather than Dattaka Chandrika.

The respondent maintained that the first widow’s wife’s adoption was lawful notwithstanding the presence of the son in the embryo. No texts of Hindu law impose a requirement that the wife, son’s widow, or grandson’s widow refrain from becoming pregnant before exercising their right to adopt. According to Perrazu v. Subbarayadu and Tukaram Mahadu v. Ramachandra Mahadu, it was decided that an adopted son on the division of the family property would share equally with a son or sons born to the adoptive father after the adoption. The respondent further argued that the share of the adopted son to be equal to that of the share of the natural-born son, of the ancestral property. On the basis of Dattaka Chandrika’s literature, this position was adopted. Additionally, the daughter’s lifetime gift of maintenance would be void because the father was under no responsibility to do so just because the daughter helped him when he was in need and was elderly. According to the Jinnappa v. Chimmava decision, a parent is not permitted to give his daughter even a minor piece of joint family property on the grounds that she took care of him under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law.

JUDGEMENT

The court ruled that the adoption was legitimate despite the presence of a son in the womb. In Shamavahoo vs. Dwarakadas Vasanji, a division bench of the Madras court adopted the same stance, holding that a Hindu’s adoption while aware of his wife’s pregnancy was not invalid. The case of Giriapa v. Hunkpapa was cited in relation to the discussion of shares between an adopted son and a son born later. As opposed to a legal son born after the adoption, the adopted son’s rights in Western India were limited to a fifth share of the father’s inheritance under the authority of Vyavahara Mayukha. There was a debate over whether the adopted son should receive one-fourth of the estate or the natural son’s portion of the assets. It was determined after considering all pertinent texts that he receives one-fourth of the share of a son via natural descent.

The court further upheld the legality of the donation made in the bereaved daughter’s favour. The court cited a ruling from the Bombay High Court in Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi, where the court upheld the gift of a tiny portion of real estate on the grounds that it had not been demonstrated to be irrational. Hindu law allows the father or his representative to make a valid gift by way of a reasonable provision for the maintenance of the daughter, considering the financial and other relevant circumstances of the family. By custom or out of convenience, such gifts are made at the time of marriage, but the father or his representative’s right to do so is not limited to that occasion and it is a moral obligation that continues to subsist until it is fulfilled. Such a present is only traditionally given during weddings, but the obligation can be fulfilled at any time, either during the father’s lifetime or later. The ability of the father or his representative to make such a gift is not limited to the occasion of a marriage, and there is no reason why a father should not be able to give his minor, unmarried daughters a reasonable portion of the joint family estate, regardless of whether they choose to marry or remain single and celibate. It doesn’t matter that two different gift deeds were executed rather than one provided the reasonableness of the donation is uncontested.

The court also ruled that the phrase “pious purposes” is open to interpretation and that Karta’s power is closely constrained. No authority has ever gone so far as to defend such a gift to a complete stranger on the grounds that it was given out of charity, regardless of how dependent the giver was on him. In the case of Partha Sarathi Pillai v. Tiruvengada, the court determined that the Karta lacks the authority necessary to give a piece of property to a complete stranger. The power is constrained and used exclusively within certain bounds. The court ruled that the gift of a joint family to a stranger was invalid as a result.

REFERENCES 

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.scconline.com

This Article is written by G Parinitha of St. Joseph’s College of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhya.