PUTTRANGAMMA Vs. M S RANGANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the courtwas delivered by

(2.) THIS, appeal is brought by certificate fromthe judgment of the Mysore High court dated 5/12/1960in R. A. No. 81 of 1956.

(3.) IT is now a settled doctrine of Hindu Law that a member of ajoint Hindu family can being about his separation in statusby a definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of hisintention to separate himself from the family and enjoy hisshare in severalty. IT is not necessary that there shouldbe an agreement between all the coparceners for thedisruption of the joint status. IT is immaterial in such acase whether the other coparceners give their assent to theseparation or not. The jural basis of this doctrine hasbeen expounded by the early writers of Hindu Law. Therelevant portion of the commentary of Vijnaneswara states asfollows[And thus though the mother is having her menstrual courses(has not lost the capacity to bear children) and the fatherhas attachment and does not desire a partition, yet by thewill (or desire) of the son a partition of the grandfather'swealth does take place]`Saraswathi Vilasa, placitum 28 states [From this it is known that without any speech (or explanation) even by means of a determination (or resolution) only, partition is effected, just an appointed daughter is constituted by mere intention without speech.]`Viramitrodaya of Mitra Misra (Ch. 11. pl. 23) is to thefollowing effect: [Here too there is no distinction between a partition during the lifetime of the father or after his death and partition at the desire of the sons may take place or even by the desire (or at the will) of a single (coparcener)].` Vyavahara Mayukha of Nilakantabhatta also states [Even in the absence of any common (joint family) property, severance does indeed result by the mere declaration 'I am separate from thee' because severance is a. particular state (or condition) of the mind and the declaration is merely a manifestation of this mental state (or condition).]` (Ch. IV, S. iii-I).Emphasis is laid on the `budhi visesha` (particular stateor condition of the mind) as the decisive factor inproducing a severance in status and the declaration isstated to be merely `abhivyanjika` or manifestation whichmight vary according to circumstances. In Suraj Narain v.Iqbal Narain(1) the Judicial Committee made the followingcategorical statement of the legal position : `A definite and unambiguous indication by one member of intention to separate himself and to enjoy his share in severalty may amount to separation. But to have that effect the intention must be unequivocal and clearly expressed.......... Suraj Narain alleged that he separated a few months later; there is, however, nowriting in support of his allegation, nothing to show thatat that time he gave expression to an unambiguous intentionon his part to cut himself off from the joint undividedfamily.`In a later case--Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj(1) theJudicial Committee examined the relevant texts of Hindu Lawand referred to the well-marked distinction that exists inHindu law between a severance in status so far as theseparating member is concerned and a de facto division intospecific shares of the property held until then jointly, andlaid down the law as follows : `One is a matter of individual decision, the desire on the part of any one member to sever himself from the joint family and to enjoy his hitherto undefined or unspecified share separately from the others without being subject to the obligations which arise from the joint status; whilst the other is the natural resultant from his decision, the division. and separation of his share which may be arrived at either by private agreement among the parties, or on failure of that, by the intervention of the court. Once the decision has been unequivocally expressed and clearly intimated to his co-sharers, his right to his right to have his share allocated separately from has a title is unimpeachable; neither the co-sharers can question it nor can the court examine his conscience to find out whether his reasons for separation were well- founded or sufficient; the court has simply to give effect to his right to have his share allocated separately from the others.In Syed Kasam v. Jorawar Singh (2), Viscount Cave, indelivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, observed `IT is settled law that in the case of a joint Hindu family subject to the law of the Mitakshara, a severance of estate is effected by an unequivocal declaration on the part of one of the joint holders of his intention to hold his share separately, even though no actual division takes place : and the commencement of a suit for partition has been held to be sufficient.to _effect a severance in interest even before decree.`These authorities were quoted with approval by this court inAddagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma(3), and it washeld that a member of a joint Hindu family seeking toseparate himself from others will have to make known hisintention to other members of his family from whom he seeksto separate. Thecorrect legal position therefore is that in a case of ajoint Hindu family subject to Mitakshara law, severance ofstatus is effected by an unequivocal declaration on the partof one of the jointholders of his intention to hold theshare separately. IT is, how.ever, necessary that themember of the joint Hindu family seeking to separate himselfmust make known his intention to other member of the familyfrom whom he seeks to separate. The process ofcommunication may, however, vary in the circumstances ofeach particular case. IT is not necessary that there'should be a formal despatch to or receipt. by other membersOf the family of the communication announcing the intentionto divide on the part of one member of the joint family.The proof of such a despatch or receipt of the communicationis not essential, nor its absence fatal to the severance ofthe status. IT is, of course, necessary that thedeclaration to be effective should reach the person orpersons affected by some process appropriate to the givensituation and circumstances of the particular case.Applying this principle to the facts found in the presentcase, we are of opinion that there was a definite andunequivocal declaration of his intention to separate on thepart of Savoy Ranganna and that intention was conveyed torespondent no. 1 and other members of the joint family andrespondent no. 1 had full knowledge of the intention ofSavoy Ranganna. IT follows therefore that there was adivision of status of Savoy Ranganna from the joint Hindufamily with effect from 8/01/1951 which was the dateof the notice.