Case: Kakumanu Peda Subbayya Andanother Vs. Kakumanu Akkamma And Another

2. In the plaint, three grounds were put forward as to why the minor plaintiff should have partition: (1) It was said that the mother of the plaintiff was ill-treated, and there was neglect to maintain her and her children. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge on appeal, held that this had not been established, and no further notice need be taken of it. (2) It was then said that there had been a sale of the family properties to one Akkul Venkatasubba Reddi for Rs. 2,300, that there was no necessity for that sale, and that its object was only to injure the plaintiff. That sale is dated 9-5-1933. The suit was in the first instance decreed but on appeal the Subordinate Judge remanded the case for trial on certain issues. At the re-hearing, it was proved that the first plaintiff was born on 20-12-1939. On that, the District Munsif held that the sale of the family properties to Akkul Venkatasubba Reddi and the purchase of items 2 and 11 in the names of the second and third defendants having been anterior to the birth of the minor plaintiff, no cause of action for partition could be founded thereon. The District Munsif also held on the evidence that the purchase of items 2 and 11 was not shown to have been made with separate funds, and that therefore they belonged to the joint family and further that the family owed no debts and that the allegations contra in the statements were not made out. But he held, however, that this did not furnish a cause of action for partition. In the result, he dismissed the suit. There was an appeal against this judgment to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, who affirmed the findings of the District Munsif that items 2 and 11 belonged to the joint family, and that there were no debts owing by it. But he also agreed with him that as the sale and purchases in question were prior to the birth of the minor plaintiff the suit for partition based thereon was not maintainable. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. The second plaintiff took the matter in second appeal to the High Court of Madras, and that was heard by Satyanarayana Rao, J., who held that as the defendants had falsely claimed that items 2 and 11 were the separate properties of the second and third defendants, their interest was adverse to that of the minor and that the suit for partition was clearly beneficial to him. He accordingly granted a preliminary decree for partition. The present appeal has been brought against it on leave granted by this Court under Art. 136

Court's reasoning:
5. On the first question, the contention of the appellants is that is the pure question of fact whether the institution of a suit is for the benefit of a minor or not, and that a finding of the Courts below on that question is not liable to be interfered with in second appeal. But it must be observed that the finding of the Subordinate Judge was only that as the impugned sale and purchases were made before the minor plaintiff was born, no cause of action for partition could be founded by him thereon, and that, in our opinion, is a clear misdirection3. Even in the Court of Appeal, the defendants persisted in pressing this claim, and further maintained that the joint family had debts and both the Courts below had concurrently held against them on these issues.These are materials from which it could rightly be concluded that it was not to the interest of the minor to continue joint with the defendants, and that it would be beneficial to him to decree partition. In holding that as the transactions in question had taken place prior to his birth the minor could not rely on them as furnishing a cause of action, the Courts below had misunderstood the real point for determination, and that was a ground on which the High Court could interfere with their finding in second appeal. We accept the finding of the High Court that the suit was instituted for the benefit of the minor plaintiff and in that view we proceed to consider the second question raised by the learned Attorney-General - and that is the main question that was pressed before us -whether the suit for partition abated by reason of the death of the minor before it was heard and decided9. The law being thus settled as regards coparceners who are sui juris, the question is whether it operates differently when the coparcener who institutes the suit for partition is a minor acting through his next friend.Now, the Hindu Law makes no distinction between a major coparcener and a minor coparcener, so far as their rights to joint properties are concerned. A minor is, equally with a major, entitled to be suitably maintained out of the family properties, and at partition, his rights are precisely those of a major. Consistently with this position, it has long been settled that a suit for partition on behalf of a minor coparcener is maintainable in the same manner as one filed by an adult coparcener, with this difference that when the plaintiff is a minor the Court has to be satisfied that the action has been instituted for his benefitIt is in the exercise of this jurisdiction that Courts require to be satisfied that the next friend of a minor has in instituting a suit for partition acted in his interest. When, therefore, the Court decides that the suit has been instituted for the benefit of the minor and decrees partition, it does so not by virtue of any rule, special or peculiar to Hindu law but in the exercise of a jurisdiction which is inherent in it and which extends over all minors. The true effect of a decision of a Court that the action is beneficial to the minor is not to create in the minor proprio vigore a right which he did not possess before but to recognise the right which had accrued to him when the person acting on his behalf instituted the action. Thus, what brings about the severance in status is the action of the next friend in instituting the suit, the decree of the Court merely rendering it effective by deciding that what the next friend has done is for the benefit of the minorBut that maxim has application only when the action is one for damages for a personal wrong, and as a suit for partition is a suit for property, the rule in question has no application to it.That was the view taken in ILR 57 Mad 95   : (AIR 1933 Mad 890  ) (FB) (D) at pages 137-138 (of ILR Mad) : (at p. 907 of AIR) and in ILR (1947) Nag 848 : (AIR 1948 Nag 1) (F) at page 871 (of ILR Nag) : (at p. 10 of AIR) and we are in agreement with it.