Case: Puttarangamma &amp; 2 Ors Vs. M. S. Ranganna &amp; 3 Ors

The case of the plaintiff was that he and the defendants lived together as members of a Joint Hindu family till January 7 1951, plaintiff being the karta. The plaintiff had no male issue but had only four daughters, Chikka Rangamma. Putta Rangamma, Rangathayamma and Chinnathayamma. The first 2 daughters were widows. The fourth daughter Chinnathayamma was living with her husband. Except Chinnathayamma, the other daughters with their families had been living with the joint family. The plaintiff became ill and entered Sharda Nursing Home for treatment as an impatient on January 4, 1951. In order to safeguard the interests of his daughters the plaintiff, Savoy Ranganna issued a notice on January 8, 1951 to the defendants declaring his unequivocal intention to separate from them. After the notices were registered at the post office certain well-wishers of the family intervened and wanted to bring about a settlement. On their advice and request the plaintiff notified to the post office that he intended to withdraw the registered notices. But as no agreement could be subsequently reached between the parties the plaintiff instituted the present suit on January 13, 1951 for partition of his share of the joint family properties. The suit was contested mainly by respondent No. I who alleged that there was no separation of status either because of the notice of January 8, 1951 or because of the institution of the suit on January 13, 1951. The case of respondent No. 1 was that Savoy Ranganna was 85 years of age and in a weak state of health and was not in a position to understand the contents of the plaint or to affix his signature of thumb impression thereon as well as on the Vakalatnama. As regards the notice of January 8, 1951, respondent No. 1 asserted that there was no communication of any such notice to him and in any case, the notices were withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna unconditionally from the post office. It was therefore contended that there was no disruption of the joint family at the time of the death of Savoy Ranganna and the appellants were not entitled to a decree for partition as legal representatives of Savoy Ranganna. Upon the examination of the evidence adduced in the case the trial court held that Savoy Ranganna had properly affixed his thumb impression on the plaint and the Vakalatnama and the presentation of the plaint was valid. The trial court found that Savoy Ranganna was not dead by the time the plaint was presented. On the question whether Savoy Ranganna was separate in status the trial court held that the notices dated January 8, 1951 were a clear and unequivocal declaration of the intention of Savoy Ranganna to become divided in status and there was sufficient communication of that intention to respondent No. 1 and other members of the family. The trial court was also of the opinion that at the time of the issue of the notices dated January 8, 1951 and at the time of execution of the plaint and the Vakalatnama dated January 13, 1951 Savoy Ranganna was in a sound state of mind and conscious of the consequences of the action he was taking. The trial Court accordingly granted a decree in favour of the appellants. Respondent No. 1 took the matter in appeal to the Mysore High Court which by its judgment dated December 5, 1960 reversed the decree of the trial court and allowed the appeal. Hegde J. one of the members of the Bench held that the suit could not be said to have been instituted by Savoy Ranganna as it was not proved that Savoy Ranganna executed the plaint. As regards the validity of the notice Ex. A, and as to whether it caused any disruption in the joint family status, Hegde J. did not think it necessary to express any opinion The other member of the Bench Mir Iqbal Hussain J. held that the joint family of which the deceased Savoy Ranganna was a member had not been disrupted by the issue of the notice dated January 8, 1951. The view taken by Mir. Iqbal Husain, J. was that there was no proof that the notice was communicated either to respondent No. 1 or other members of the family and in any event the notice had been withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna and so there was no severance of joint status from the date of the notice.

Court's reasoning:
It is admitted that Savoy Ranganna was very old, about 85 years of age and was ailing of chronic diarrhoea. He was living in the family house till January 4, 1851 when he was removed to the Sharda Nursing Home where he died on January 13, 1951 at 3 p. m. According to the case of respondent No. 1 Savoy Ranganna had a paralytic stroke in 1950 and was completely, bed-ridden there after and his eye-sight was bad for 5 to 6 years prior to his death. It was alleged in the Written Statement that Savoy Ranganna was unconscious for some days prior to his death The case of respondent No. 1 on this point is disproved by the evidence of D. W. 6, Dr. Venkata Rao who was in-charge of the Sharda Nursing Home on the material dates This witness admitted that the complaint of Savoy Ranganna was that he was suffering from chronic diarrhoea for over five months. He was anaemic but he was not suffering from any attack of paralysis. As regards the condition of Savoy Raganna on January 8, 1951, the evidence of P. W. 1, Dr. Subbaramiah is important. This witness is the owner of the Sharda Nursing Home and he has testified that the notice Ex. A was read over to Savoy Ranganna and after getting read the latter affixed his thumb mark there on. The witness asked Savoy Ranganna whether he was able to understand the contents of the notice and the latter replied in the affirmative. The witness has certified on the notice, Ex. A-1 that Savoy Ranganna was conscious when he affixed his left thumb mark to the notice in his presence No reason was suggested on behalf of the respondents why the evidence of this witness should be disbelieved4. It is now a settled doctrine of Hindu Law that a member of a joint Hindu family can bring about his separation in status by a definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. It is not necessary that there should be an agreement between all the coparceners for the disruption of the joint status. It is immaterial in such a case whether the other coparceners give their assent to the separation or not. The jural basis of this doctrine has been expounded by the early writers of Hindu LawThe process if communication may, however, vary in the circumstances of each particular case.It is not necessary that there should be a formal despatch to or receipt by other members of the family of the communication announcing the intention to divide on the part of one member of the joint family. The proof of such a despatch or receipt of the communication is not essential, nor its absence fatal to the severance of the status. It is, of course, necessary that the declaration to be effective should reach the person or persons affected by some process appropriate to the given situation and circumstances of the particular case. Applying this principle to the facts found in the present case, we are of opinion that there was a definite and unequivocal declaration of his intention to separate on the part of Savoy Ranganna and that intention was conveyed to respondent No. 1 and other members of the joint family and respondent No. 1 had full knowledge of the intention of Savoy Ranganna. It follows therefore that there was a division of status of Savoy Ranganna from the joint Hindu family with effect from January 8, 1951 which was the date of the notice6. We proceed to consider the next question arising in this appeal whether the plaint filed on January 13, 1951 was validly executed by Savoy Ranganna and whether he had affixed his thumb impression thereon after understanding its contents. The case of the appellants is that Sri M. S. Ranganathan prepared the plaint and had gone to the Sharda Nursing Home at about0 or 10 a. m on January 13, 1951.Sri Ranganathan wrote out the plaint, which was in English and translated it to Savoy Ranganna who approved the same. P. W. 2, the clerk of Sri Ranganathan has deposed to this effect. He took the ink-pad and fixed the left thumb impression of Savoy Ranganna on the plaint and also on the Vakalatnama. There is the attestation of Sri M. S. Ranganathan on the plaint and on the Vakalatnama. The papers were handed over to P. W. 2 who after purchasing the necessary court-fee stamps filed the plaint and the Vakalatnama in the court at about 11-30 a. m. or 12 noon on the same dayComment was made by Counsel or behalf of the respondents that Sri Ranganathan was not examined as a witness to prove that he had prepared the plaint and Savoy Ranganna had affixed his thumb impression in his presence. In our opinion, the omission of Sri Ranganathan to give evidence in this case is unfortunate. It would have been proper conduct on his part if he had returned the brief of the appellants and given evidence in the case as to the execution of the plaint and the Vakalatnama. But in spite of this circumstance we consider that the evidence of the appellants on this aspect of the case must be accepted as true. It is necessary to notice that the plaint and the Vakalatnama are both countersigned by Sri. Ranganathan - a responsible Advocate - and it is not likely that he would subscribe his signature to these documents if they had been executed by a person who was unable to understand the contents there of. As we have already said, it is unfortunate that the Advocate Sri Ranganathan has not been examined as a witness, but in spite of this omission we are satisfied that the evidence adduced in the case has established that Savoy Ranganna validly executed the plaint and the Vakalatnama and that he was conscious and was in full possession of his mental faculties at the time of the execution of these two-documents. It follows therefore that the appellants and respondent No. 4 who are the daughters and legal representatives of Savoy Ranganna are entitled to a decree in the terms granted by the District Judge of Mysore.