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

2. The material facts leading to the suit for partition are these. Annavi Pillai and his five sons, Rajagopal, Akhilandam, Arumugam. Balasubramaniam and Somasundaram constituted a Mitakshara joint family. Admittedly, the joint family had no property of its own until 1946 though Annavi Pillai owned certain self acquired property. On June 5. 1943 Anavi Pillai executed a will leaving his property to four of his sons excluding the first son Rajagopa1 who was left out because. Annavi "was not pleased with his conduct", Some time in the later part of the year 1943 or early 1944 Annavis third son Arumugam married the first plaintiff, Pakkiam Ammal who is the first respondent in this appeal. On October 11, 1944 Arumugam executed a document described as a deed of release in favour of his father. This document is as follows:"Deed of release executed on 10th November, 1944 in favour of V. Annavi Pillai, son of Veeramalai Pillai. Vellala caste. Saivite, Miras. aged about 75 Years and residing at cusba Manaparai. Kulitalai Taluq, Tiruchirapalli district by Arumugham third son of the aforesaid person, of the said caste and religion, aged about 26 years and at present residing at Madura is as follows:As a result of lack of amity between you and me in family. I have been residing separately at Madura for the last about one year. All the immovable and movable properties, money lending transactions. trade and cash that are at present with you are all your self acauired properties. I have no kind of legal right in them. Even so. I have been asking you to give me something out of them for my sustenance and you have been refusing to give. Ultimately on the recommendation of my mother that I might be given something and on your acceptance of the same. I have on this date received from you Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred) in cash, in the presence of thein full and final settlement of any rights that I may claim in all the properties aforesaid even after your lifetime. I have, hereby, released all the rights that I may claim over all the aforesaid properties. I have no right whatsoever in your immovable properties cash, money lending transactions and business dealing.To this effect have I executed this release with myconsent."3. This appeal turns on the true meaning and scope of this document.4. On February 14, 1945 a daughter was born to Arumugam. She is the second plaintiff and the second respondent in this appeal. On October 21, 1946 Annavi Pillai executed a deed caneelling the Will that he made on June 5. 1943 disinheriting his eldest son Raiagonal. In this deed the reason given for cancellation of the Will was that the misunderstanding with Raiagopal had been removed which made execution of another Will necessary for division of the entire property among all theDecember 2, 1959 the four sons executed a deed of partition in respect of the said joint family property.. On March 21, 1960 Pakkiam Ammal, widow of Arumugam, and her minor daughter whom she represented as next friend instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises praying for partition and separate possession of Pakkiam Ammals 1/6th share in the joint propertv impleading Rajagopal Akhilandam, Balasubramaniam, Somasundaram and Annavi Pillai as defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.5. The trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal by the defendants the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court were affirmed by the High Court. The High Court found that in 1946 Annavi Pillalsproperty became impressed with the character of joint family property on the basis of the statement made by Annavi pillai in the deed of release executed on November 17, 1959 that for the past 13 years he and his four sons were living as members of a joint family and that he had relinquished his rights in hisproperty which since then wag being treated as joint family 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.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.that he abandoned his rights over his fathersproperty 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.

Reasoning: 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.