| Citation | AIR 1968 SC 1018 |
| Date of Judgement | February 8,1968 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case type | Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1965 |
| Appellant | Puttrangamma and others |
| Respondent | Raganna and others |
| Bench | J.C. Shah and V. Ramaswami(I),jj. |
FACTS
Savoy Ranganna, the plaintiff and the karta of the Hindu Undivided Family lived with the defendants together. He had four daughters namely, Chikka Rangamma, Putta Rangamma, Rangathayamma and Chinnathayyamma and no son. Fourth daughter being the respondent, lived with her husband and the first two daughters were widow, who along with their families lived with the Plaintiff.
When plaintiff fell ill, he was admitted to Sharda Nursing Home as in patient. Being concerned about his daughters he issued a notice on January 8,1951 to defendants wanting separation, clearly mentioning his intention
Later on the advice of well-wishers of the family, plaintiff withdrew the notice and later filed a suit for the partition and claimed his share from the property.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether the plaintiff Savoy Ranganna died as a member of Joint Hindu Family or as a divided member of Joint Hindu Family?
ARGUMENTS
The respondent urged that Savoy Ranganna was 85 years old when the suit was filed and he was not in appropriate stable condition to understand the terms of the suit filed. Along with that it was contended that plaint was not in suitable condition to affix his thumb impression
on the suit and on the vakalatnama. He further alleged that the Respondent was not aware of any notice regarding the intention of separation issued by plaintiff and if so, it was later withdrawn by the plaintiff. It was further stated that the during the death of the plaintiff there was no separation in the family.
Later when the evidences were examined, the result was that the plaintiff had affixed his thumb impression in his full awareness and that the plaintiff was not dead during the time plaint was presented. Regarding the communication of the intention of the separation, the notice dated January 8,1951 was sufficient to express the intention of Savoy Ranganna of separation to every member of the family.
The trial court had an opinion that plaintiff was of sound mind when he had issued the notice and during the time when the suit was filed, the plaintiff was in his full awareness and conscious.
Besides this the testimony presented by the witness Dr. Subbaramiah, the owner of the Sharda Nursing Home that when he asked the plaintiff that whether he understood the matter of the notice, he replied in affirmative in his complete sense. This presentation of the witness was of utmost importance and which had convinced the jury and they believed the witness.
JUDGEMENT
The judgement was delivered by justice V.Ramaswami. The judgement delivered by Mysore High Court was set aside and the supreme court considered the judgement delivered by the Mysore District Judge, which was in favor of the petitioner Savoy Ranganna.
The court relied on the doctrine of Hindu Law that a member of Joint Hindu Family can ask for his individual share from the joint family by providing a declaration of his intention to the other members of the family. Besides there is no need for an agreement regarding the separation and it is immaterial to require the assent of others members of the family.
The court further held that the petitioner died as a member of divided Hindu Family. The suit that he had filed was filed in his complete stability and he knew and understood the matter, mentioned in his notice and in the suit.
REFERENCES
This case analysis is done by Bhumika Kathuria, student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments