Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Ramesam, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Ramesam, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Second Appeal)

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns ancestral properties and property derived from a will of the maternal grandfather, Magarappachariar, dated 27 December 1878, by which his property was divided between his elder daughter Thulasi Ammal (and her sons Ahobilachariar, Vedavyasachari and Padmanabhachariar) and his younger daughter (and her sons). The plaintiff alleges that in 1910 the three brothers (the plaintiff's husband Padmanabhachariar and defendants 1 and 2) divided the relevant share and that the suit items fell to Padmanabhachariar, who enjoyed them from 1910 until his death on 26 October 1918; the plaintiff sues to recover possession, alleging trespass by the defendants.

The defendants admit an attempt at partition but deny a completed partition, asserting that the partition fell through because they refused to give the plaintiff's husband a share in the maternal grandfather's property. Two issues were framed by the trial Court concerning (1) whether the alleged division occurred and (2) whether the plaint properties were ancestral properties and whether the plaintiff's husband got the A-schedule properties as his share.

Both lower Courts (District Munsif and Subordinate Judge) decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed and the present document is the opinion disposing of that second appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiff's husband and defendants 1 and 2 were divided (i.e., whether there was a partition) as alleged by the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the plaint properties are ancestral properties of the parties and whether the plaintiff's husband obtained the A-schedule properties as his share in that partition.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (Defendants') Arguments — as advanced by Mr. Subramania Aiyar

  • There was a change in the plaintiff's case; the plaint contained an erroneous allegation that the properties in schedules A, B and C were to be divided by Padmanabhachariar and the defendants through their maternal grandfather.
  • By reference to the rule of Hindu law in the "Tagore case" concerning unborn demises, Padmanabhachariar (who was not born in 1879 when the grandfather died) could not have taken under the will; therefore he got no share under the will and the plaint was fundamentally erroneous and should be dismissed.
  • The alleged partition or allotment to Padmanabhachariar could not be proved because the unregistered deed of partition (Ex. C) is inadmissible; therefore the plaintiff cannot prove that the suit properties were allotted to him in the partition.
  • Counsel relied on authorities (including Jai Ram/Jairam Das v. Raj Narain) to argue limits on what could be proved by oral evidence about the terms of an unregistered partition deed.

Plaintiff's Case and Relevant Points Found by Lower Courts (as described in the opinion)

  • The plaintiff alleged that the brothers divided the share and that the suit items fell to Padmanabhachariar, who then possessed them as his separate properties from 1910 until his death in 1918.
  • The lower Courts found that the parties tried the case on the basis that the maternal grandfather's properties were treated as part of the family properties and included in the 1910 partition, and that the parties understood the second issue in that wide sense.
  • The Courts below found, based on evidence of conduct and enjoyment over a long period, that the maternal grandfather's properties had been treated as joint family properties and that Padmanabhachariar had separate enjoyment of the suit properties at and after the time of partition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Rajanikanta Pal v. Jaga Mohan Pal Long continued treatment and mixing of properties is good evidence that properties were thrown into the common stock. The Court relied on this authority to hold that 19 years' mixed treatment (1891–1910) supported an inference that the maternal grandfather's properties were treated as joint family property and thrown into common stock.
Jairam Das v. Raj Naraian Fact of partition can be found from other evidence even if the deed itself is inadmissible. The Court cited this case to support the proposition that the fact of a partition may be inferred from conduct and other evidence despite inadmissibility of an unregistered deed.
Chhottalal Aditram v. Bai Mohkore Division in status can be inferred from conduct of the family; conduct can prove division despite absence of admissible partition deed. The Court relied on this principle to affirm the lower Courts' finding of division in status based on evidence of the brothers living as divided brothers after 1910.
Gobind Prasad v. Mohan Lal A widow is entitled to a decree on the footing of her husband's bare possessory title unless opponents can show a superior title. The Court applied this principle to hold that the plaintiff (as widow) was entitled to decree based on her husband's possessory title unless defendants could displace it by proving superior title or by proving the terms of partition showing the properties were not allotted to him.
Jai Ram Das v. Raj Narain Oral evidence can prove the fact of partition even if unregistered deed exists, but the actual terms of partition cannot be proved by oral evidence. The Court observed that this case does not assist the appellants here because, unlike that case, there was separate later enjoyment as distinct property which supplies the necessary proof for the plaintiff's claim.
Maung Po Lun v. Ma E Mai Referenced in relation to limits on proving partition terms by oral evidence. The Court stated this authority "carries the matter no further" and did not require further discussion in the present case.
Ramuchetty v. Panchammal Similar view expressed by Kumaraswami Sastri and Venkatasubba Rao JJ. on related partition/possession issues. The Court noted that this Court's earlier view was substantially in accord with the reasoning adopted in the present case regarding possession and partition issues.
Rajangam Aiyar v. Rajangam Aiyar Privy Council authority referenced in discussion whether an unregistered deed can be used to show character of possession. The Court expressed doubt that this Privy Council decision permits use of an unregistered partition deed (requiring registration) for proving character of possession in immovable property cases of this kind.
Varada Pillai v. Jeervarathnammal Privy Council decision comparing admissibility where document did not require registration. The Court distinguished that decision because the document there did not require registration, whereas Ex. C in the present case required registration and was therefore inadmissible for purposes affecting immovable property.
Neelan Venkataratanamma v. Varaha Narasimhachary Support for caution in treating unregistered partition deeds as admissible to show character of possession. The Court expressed agreement with Jackson, J.'s cautionary approach in that case and declined to treat Ex. C as admissible evidence of the terms of partition.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a sequential legal analysis strictly tied to the evidence and legal admissibility rules articulated in the record:

  1. On pleadings and trial scope: The Court accepted the Subordinate Judge's observation that despite defects in pleadings, the parties went to trial having correctly understood the real issue — namely whether the maternal grandfather's properties were treated as family properties and included in the 1910 partition — and the Court declined to permit a purely technical plea to defeat a case tried at length on that basis.
  2. On treatment of the maternal grandfather's properties: The Court found corroboration in the evidence (including admissions in depositions and the consistent treatment of receipts/income) that from about 1891 to 1910 the family treated the maternal grandfather's properties as joint family properties and mixed them with ancestral properties; relying on Rajanikanta Pal v. Jaga Mohan Pal this long course of conduct was considered good evidence that the properties were thrown into the common stock.
  3. On existence of a completed partition in 1910: Although an unregistered deed of partition (Ex. C) was inadmissible to prove the terms of a partition, the Court held that the fact of a partition or a division in status may be inferred from the conduct of the family — consistent with Jairam Das and Chhottalal Aditram authorities — and concluded both lower Courts were right to find that the brothers were divided in status after 1910.
  4. On proof of specific allotments/terms of partition: Because Ex. C (unregistered) was inadmissible, secondary/oral evidence could not be used to prove the precise terms of the partition. Thus the Court stated it could not admit proof of the exact allotment of particular properties to Padmanabhachariar based on that deed.
  5. On possession and separate enjoyment: The Court emphasized that it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove the exact terms of partition if she can show that at the time of his death Padmanabhachariar was in possession of the suit properties as his separate properties. The Courts below had found such separate enjoyment (1941? [sic — as per text: 1910–1918]) supported by lease deeds and oral evidence; the present Court found that evidence "overwhelming" and sufficient to sustain the plaintiff's claim on the basis of possessory title.
  6. On interaction with precedent limiting oral proof of partition terms: The Court explained that authorities holding terms of partition cannot be proved by oral evidence (e.g., Jai Ram Das) do not preclude a finding of separate possession that arose after partition; separate enjoyment is not identical with proving the partition's terms and is consistent with other modes by which a sharer might come into possession.
  7. On partial performance analogy: The Court observed (as an additional line of reasoning) that later exclusive enjoyment of items as separate property could amount to partial performance of a partition contract. By analogy to full-bench decisions permitting enforcement of unregistered sale-deeds when partly performed (possession and payment), a partition acted upon for several years by distinct enjoyment might be given effect despite formal registration defects. The Court labeled this an unnecessary line to pursue further for the present decision but noted the analogy.
  8. Conclusion of reasoning: Given the admissible evidence of separate enjoyment and the findings of the lower Courts regarding division in status, the present Court concluded that the plaintiff's right to a decree followed and that the appellants' technical challenges failed.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The second appeal is dismissed. The Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower Courts (apart from the inadmissible Ex. C), found in favour of the plaintiff, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Direct consequences and practical implications for the parties:

  • The plaintiff (as widow of Padmanabhachariar) is entitled to a decree for the suit properties on the basis that her husband had possessory title and had enjoyed the properties as his separate properties at the time of his death.
  • The defendants (appellants) must pay costs and were allowed two months' time to pay the balance of the amount of mesne profits as directed by the Court.

Broader implications discussed by the Court:

The opinion discusses, as a theoretical point, that where there has been later exclusive enjoyment amounting to partial performance of a partition, courts might give effect to the partition notwithstanding registration formalities — by analogy to full-bench authorities permitting enforcement of partially performed unregistered sales. The Court did not pursue or finally decide this broader principle for the present case and disposed of the appeal on the basis of possessory enjoyment and the evidence before it.

Note: All statements in this summary are drawn directly from the opinion text and do not introduce facts or inferences beyond what the opinion itself states.

Show full summary ...

    Ahobilachariar v. Thulasi Ammal

    1. The facts of the second appeal may be stated first. Defendant 1 Ahobilachariar, defendant 2 Vedavyasachari, and the plaintiff's husband Padmanabhachariar were brothers. They had certain ancestral properties. Their maternal grandfather Magarappachariar executed a will dated 27th December, 1878, dividing his property into two parts and giving one share to his elder daughter Thulasi Ammal and her sons, i.e the above said Ahobilachariar and brothers and the other share to his younger daughter, and her sons. We are now concerned with the first share. Plaintiffs case is that the two defendants and her husband took that share in 1910. They divided the whole property consisting of the ancestral property and the property derived from their maternal grandfather, and in such division the suit items fell to the share of Padmanabhachariar who enjoyed from 1910 to 26th October, 1918, when he died, and that they were trespassed upon by the defendants. She, therefore, sues to recover their possession. The defendants admit that there was an attempt at partition, but deny that there was a completed partition. Thay say that they refused to give a share in the maternal grandfather's property and this was why the partition fell through and that there was no division of the property. Two issues were framed:

    (1) Whether the plaintiff's husband and defendants 1 and 2 became divided as alleged by the plaintiff.

    (2) Whether the plaint properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, and did the plaintiff's husband get the A schedule properties for his share.

    2. Bath the Courts below gave a decree to the plaintiff and the defendants have filed this second appeal.

    3. The learned vakil for the appellants, Mr. Subramania Aiyar, argued that there is a change in the plaintiff's case.

    4. He contended that the allegation in the plaint was the properties specified in schedules A, B and C were to be divided by the late Padmanabhachariar and defendants 1 and 2 through their maternal grandfather;

    that this allegation being obviously erroneous the suit ought to be dismissed; that Padmanabhachariar not having been born in 1879, when the maternal grandfather died, he got no share under the will with reference to the rule of Hindu Law laid down in the Tagore case as to unborn demises, that Padmanabhachariar, therefore, got nothing from his maternal grandfather's property by reason of its being thrown into the common stock by defendants 1 and 2; that this was really the case considered by the Court below and it ought not to have been allowed. A perusal of the District Munsif's judgmant and the evidence adduced in the case shows that the parties went to trial on the point, whether the properties now in suit were treated as part of the family properties and were included in the partition and allotted to the plaintiff's husband's share in 1910. The second issue was wide enough to cover it and it is obvious that the parties understood it in that sense. The Subordinate Judge observes in para. 8

    In spite of the defects in the pleadings the parties appear to have gone to trial altar correctly understanding the situation.

    5. I agree with this observation of the Subordinate Judge, and I see no reason to allow this purely technical plea on the part of the appellants after a very elaborate trial of the case and consideration of it by the Courts below.

    6. The maternal grandfather died in 1879. Defendants 1 and 2 were then minors. Their father must have taken charge of his father-in-law's properties and managed them. His wife, a daughter of the testator, was entitled to a share under the will on a strict construction of the will. He died in 1899, and it was said that his wife died a few years before his death. Defendant 1 attained majority in 1888. Whether the father managed the father-in-law's properties between 1879–1881 on behalf of his sons only or on behalf of his wife and sons we cannot say; and whether after 1881 defendant 1, who must have participated in the management, and his father, managed it on behalf of the brothers only or on behalf of their mother also, there is nothing to show. Padmanabhachariar was born in 1891. Defendant 2 must have attained majority at about the same time. Both the lower Courts find with reference to the admissions made in the depositions of defendants 1 and 2 that at the time of the partition in 1910 the attitude of defendants 1 and 2 was to regard the maternal grandfather's properties also as joint family properties. The evidence is that they made no distinction between the income of the ancestral properties and the income of the maternal grandfather's properties. Mr. Subramania Aiyar contends that this was not in evidence from which it can be inferred that the properties were thrown into the common stock. In my opinion it is good evidence from which such an inference can be made and the Courts below were right in making such an inference. If from 1891 to 1910, a period of 19 years, the whole family regarded the properties derived from the maternal grandfather as joint family properties and mixed them up with the ancestral properties, it is good evidence that they were thrown into the common stock: vide Rajanikanta Pal v. Jaga Mohan Pal(1). There is not an isolated fact like a purchase but the treatment for 19 years.

    7. The next question is what happened in 1910. Both the Courts below found that there was a completed partition in that year. In arriving at this conclusion they excluded from consideration an unregistered deed of partition, Ex. C. In this they were right. Ex. C. is in admissible as evidence of a partition or of the terms of the partition. But the fact of a partition can be found with reference to other evidence: Jairam Das v. Raj Naraian(2). The fact of a division in status can always be inferred from the conduct of the family, and if from 1910 to 1918 there is unimpeachable evidence to show that the brothers lived as divided brothers, I do not see why a division in status cannot be inferred from such conduct merely because the deed of partition is inadmissible in evidence: Chhottalal Aditram v. Bai Mohkore(3). In my opinion the fact of a division in status is not a term of the partition. Even if it were so, such conduct is evidence of a division in status by reason of the conduct itself and not by reason of the partition, and in this view it could certainly be considered. Both the lower Courts in this case found that the brothers were clearly divided in status. There is overwhelming evidence in support of this conclusion.

    8. The next question is whether one can ascertain what were the shares that fell to the brothers in the partition of 1910. The deed of partition itself being inadmissible, no secondary evidence can be given as to the terms of the partition, and therefore it is not open to the Courts to consider what were the properties that fell to the share of Padmanabhachariar in the partition of 1910. But this does not prevent the Court from finding whether or not all the suit properties were being enjoyed by Padmanabhachariar as separate properties at the time of his death, and this is enough to sustain the plaintiffs' suit.

    9. The Courts below have found that Padmanabhachariar was in possession of the suit properties as his separate properties at the time of his death. Again I think there is overwhelming evidence in support of this conclusion. The plaintiff as his widow is entitled to a decree for the suit properties on the footing of the bare possessory title of her husband unless defendants 1 and 2 can dispute the title which has been inherited by the widow, vide Gobind Prasad v. Mohan Lal(4), by a superior title. They can displace it only by showing that in the partition these properties were not allowed to Padamana bhachariar. If they are to prove what properties were allotted to him in the partition, and that the suit properties were not allotted to him, they are confronted with the same difficulty as the plaintiff in proving the terms of the partition. As a matter of fact the evidence shows not merely that the properties were enjoyed exclusively by Padamanabhachariar at the time of his death, but also that they were enjoyed by him as his separate properties from 1910–1918. There are lease-deeds filed in respect of two items and there is oral evidence for the third item, and both the lower Courts have unanimously acted upon such evidence. If it is permissible, I think the evidence is strong enough to even infer that the suit properties were allotted to the share of Padmanabhachariar in the partition of 1910. But, as I have already said this is not permissible; but it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to succeed in this case to show that they were allotted in partition. It is enough for her to show that the suit properties were enjoyed by her husband as separate properties. To allege and prove this is not the same thing as to prove the terms of the partition of 1910, for the enjoyment of any item of property by Padamanabhachariar as separate property is consistent not only with its being allotted to his share in partition, but also with its being allotted to another sharer and afterwards its being given to Padmanabhachariar by some later arrangement. I do not mean to say that there is such evidence in this case of any of the suit items falling to the share of some other sharer at first and then coming in the possession of Padmanabhachariar in the years following 1910 by some later arrangement. All that I mean is that to find separate enjoyment by Padmanabhachariar in the years following 1910 is not identical with saying that they fell to his share in 1910, and it does not amount to proving the terms of the partition. In this view the case strongly relied on by Subramania Aiyar, namely Jai Ram Das v. Raj Narain, does not help us in this case. In that case it was held that the fact of partition can always be proved by oral evidence even if there be an unregistered deed, but the actual terms of the partition cannot be proved by oral evidence. It does not appear that in that case there was any evidence of any later enjoyment as separate property. If so, I have nothing to say against that case. The decision in Maung Po Lun v. Ma E Mai(5) carries the matter no further and does not require any discussion. This substantially was the view taken by my learned brothers Kumaraswami Sastri and Venkatasubba Rao JJ., in Ramuchetty v. Panchammal(6). It is unnecessary for me to hold that Ex. C is evidence to show the character of the possession as they seem to have held with reference to a similar unregistered deed of partition in that case. I doubt whether the decisions of the Privy Council in Rajangam Aiyar v. Rajangam Aiyar(7) and Varada Pillai v. Jeervarathnammal(8) enable one to go so far as that. I am inclined to agree with Jackson, J., in Neelan Venkataratanamma v. Varaha Narasimhachary(9). The unregistered deed of partition Ex. C. is certainly evidence that there was a talk of partition, on that date. In the Privy Council case Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal the document that was actually used to show the character of the possession was a document that did not require to be registered. It was merely a petition reciting the fact of prior gift and did not require registration. In the present case the document did require registration and it is inadmissible for any purpose affecting the immovable properties. But, as I have already said, it is unnecessary to use Ex. C. There is clear evidence that Padmanabachariar was enjoying the suit properties as separate properties and I have already observed that to prove that is not necessarily to prove the terms of the partition.

    10. The above view is enough to dispose of the second appeal. But it seems to me one might go even a step further. Even if the terms of the partition cannot be proved, if there is later enjoyment of certain items as separate property such enjoyment amounts to partial performance of the contract of partition and its terms; and in such a case the partition can be given effect to by reason of its partial performance even though the terms of the partition as it took place at the time cannot be proved. On the same principle, it is now established by full bench decisions of this Court that Courts can give effect to a sale which has been acted upon by transference of possession and payment of purchase money though the sale-deed itself has not been registered. I am unable to see any difference between the two cases. Even if a partition-deed requires registration as is contemplated by fresh legislation it seems to me that as a matter of fact a partition, when acted upon for several years by distinct and separate enjoyment so that one can infer a partial performance of the contract of partition, the matter stands on the same footing as an unregistered sale-deed partially carried out. The registration law in the one case stands on the same footing as the registration law in the other case. At present it is unnecessary to pursue this line of argument further.

    11. I agree with the conclusions of the Courts below which were arrived at, apart from Rs. C. In the result the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The defendants will be allowed two months time for paying the balance of the amount of mesne profits.

    12. Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ahobilachariar v. Thulasi Ammal
    (Jan 10, 1927)