Case: Rajagopal Pillai &amp; Another Vs. Pakkiam Ammal &amp; Others

property. It was held that the legal consequence of this change in the character of the property would follow regardless of Annavis intention, as appearing from this deed of release, to keep the property confined to himself and his four goes. It was pointed out that the deed of release (Ext. B-3) executed by Arumugam on November 10, 1944 could not have the effect of bringing about a severance of joint status. The High Court explained that in 1944 the joint family of Annavi Pillai and his five sons had no property of its own and Arumugam by stating in this document (Ext. B-3) that he abandoned his rights over his fathers self-acquired property did not cause a division in status. It appears from the Judgment that the High Court was conscious of the position in law that renunciation by a coparcener of his interest in the joint family property separates him from the other members, but it was held that as there was no joint family property at the time, execution of the deed of release by Arumugam could not have the effect of bringing about a division in status. The High Court found that as Arumugam continued to be a member of the joint family in 1946, he was entitled to a share in the joint family property which on his death in 1954 devolved on his wife. On these findings the High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants.6. Mr. Natesan, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the clear effect of the deed of release executed by Arumugam was severance of the joint status. This document (Ext. B-3) which we have set out above shows that "as a result of lack of amity" between Arumugam and his father, the former on receiving Rs. 500/- in cash relinquished all claims on his fathers self-acquired property, though he admitted having "no kind of legal right" therein. According to the learned counsel, what Arumugam had given up by this deed of release was not his chance of Succession to his fathers self-acquired property but an existing right. It was submitted that under the Mitakshara law which governs the parties the interest of a son in the self-acquired property of his father is not a spes successions, but a real right vested in the son by birth though it is subject to the fathers unqualified right to deal with and dispose of the property in any manner he likes. It is however not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to examine the nature of the interest that a son has in the self-acquired property of his father under the Mitakshara law; what is necessary is to ascertain the nature of the right that Arumugam relinquished in the instant case. It is clear from Arumugams deed of release that what he abandoned was his right, if any, in his fathers property so lone his father was alive and also any claim that he might make on such property after his fathers death. But in 1944 when Arumugam executed this deed of release in favour of Annavi Pillai neither of them anticipated that two years later in 1946 Annavis self-acquired property would be converted into joint family property. In 1944 Arumugam could not possibly give up a right which was not in contemplation of either himself or his father. As the High Court pointed out"it is a well settled rule of interpretation of deeds of release that however wide and general the covenant of release may be, its operation must be restricted to the rights which are in the contemplation or in controversy between the parties and would not cover or comprehend rights which are never in the minds of the parties at that time."As an authority for this proposition of law the High Court referred to the decision of this Court in Chinnathayi v. Kula - sekara, 1952 SCR 241 = (AIR 1952 SC 29 ) where this Court Observed"It is well settled that general words of release do not mean release of rights other than those then put up and have to be limited to the circumstances which were in the contemplation of the parties when it wag executed."7. The next question is whether Arumugam was a member of the joint family in 1946: if he was then as the High Court pointed out the legal consequence of the self-acquired property being converted into joint family property would follow regardless of Annavi Pillais intentions, It was not contended that even if Arumugam could not be said to have given up his right in the joint family property by the deed of release yet the execution of the deed by itself effected a division in status. The deed of release contains a statement that "as a result of lack of amity" between Arumugam and his father, the former had been residing separately for some time: that however does not establish that Arumugam had gone out of the joint family. Just as Rajagopal did not cease to be a member of the joint family when displeased with his conduct Annavi Pillai thought of disinheriting him by executing the Will on June 5, 1943. Subsequently, when the misunderstanding with Rajagona1 was removed, Annavi cancelled the Will by executing another deed on October 21. 1946. In this deed of cancellation (Ext. A-11) there is a statement to which we have referred above, suggesting that Annavi contemplated dividing the property among all his sons. This indicates that Arumugam was still considered as a member of the family. It has also been found that Arumugam came back to live with the other members of the family till 1954 when he died. It cannot therefore be said that Arumugam had ceased to be a member of the joint family in 1944 and it must be held that he had a share in the joint family property to which his widow became entitled on his death.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It was not contended that even if Arumugam could not be said to have given up his right in the joint family property by the deed of release yet the execution of the deed by itself effected a division in status. The deed of release contains a statement that "as a result of lack of amity" between Arumugam and his father, the former had been residing separately for some time: that however does not establish that Arumugam had gone out of the joint family. Just as Rajagopal did not cease to be a member of the joint family when displeased with his conduct Annavi Pillai thought of disinheriting him by executing the Will on June 5, 1943. Subsequently, when the misunderstanding with Rajagona1 was removed, Annavi cancelled the Will by executing another deed on October 21. 1946. In this deed of cancellation (Ext.there is a statement to which we have referred above, suggesting that Annavi contemplated dividing the property among all his sons. This indicates that Arumugam was still considered as a member of the family. It has also been found that Arumugam came back to live with the other members of the family till 1954 when he died. It cannot therefore be said that Arumugam had ceased to be a member of the joint family in 1944 and it must be held that he had a share in the joint family property to which his widow became entitled on his death.