NARASIMHAN Vs. PONNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point that arises for consideration in these two appeals, is, whether Perumal Gounder could have disposed of the properties belonging to Sadachi Ammal. THE facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this point, are, as found by the two courts below, as follows:? One Ponnusamy Gounder was the prepositus of the family. He had a wife by name Sadachi. THE suit properties are the ancestral properties. Ponnusamy Gounder died in the year 1950, whereas Sadachi died in the year 1970. Ponnusami was survived by Sadachi, one son by name Perumal Gounder and two daughters, Andal and Janaki. Perumal Gounder also died subsequent to 1970, leaving behind him, his widow Ponnammal and two sons, Narasimhan and Natarajan. Natarajan is no more. Andal has a son by name Raman. Original Suit No. 77 of 1981 was filed in the Sub. Court, Tiruvannamalai by Andal and Janaki against Perumal Gounder, Ponnammal, Narasimhan and Lakshmi for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties. One more fact to be noticed here is that Perumal Gounder, as the Manager of the Hindu Family, settled items 1 to 3, 8, 13 to 15 of the A Schedule and item 4 of the B Schedule in favour of Lakshmi, 4th defendant in O.S. No. 77 of 1981, who is married to Narasimhan, son of Perumal Gounder. THE learned single judge has held that the document Exs. A.5 dated 25.6.1965, was a deed of transfer, transferring certain items, viz., items 1 to 3, 8 and 13 to 15 of the A Schedule and item 4 of the B Schedule in consideration of Lakshmi marrying Narasimhan, his son. Accordingly, it has been held that Perumal Gounder could not have transferred anything beyond his share. THE deed of settlement was valid to the extent of his share. It may be pointed out that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 as amended by Act No. 11 of 1938 was extended to the Madras State before the death of Ponnusami, who died in the year 1950. Consequently, as per the provisions contained in Section 3(2) of the aforesaid Act Sadachi Ammal continued to hold the same interest in the joint family property, as was held by Ponnusamy, her husband. However, as per sub-section (3) of Section 3, the interest held by Sadachi Ammal was Hindu Woman's estate. On the coming into force of Hindu Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under Section 14(1) of that Act, the Hindu Woman's estate of Sadachi Ammal was enlarged into an absolute estate and thereby she became an absolute owner of the interest of her husband in the joint family property. Her interest in the suit properties on the death of her husband Ponnusami was one half share, THErefore, Sadachi Ammal continued to have half share in the suit properties and became the absolute owner on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. That being so, on 25.6.1965, the share of Sadachi Ammal could not have been disposed of by Perumal Gounder even as Kartha of the joint family, because Sadachi Ammal was not a member of the co-parcenary, though she was a member of the joint family and further her interest in the properties, equivalent to the share of her husband, was her absolute interest, and as such, that could not have been disposed of by Perumal Gounder, by way of gift even as the Kartha of the joint family. Realising this difficulty, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that at any rate, Sadachi Ammal till her death, did not challenge the transfer made under Ex. A-5 and therefore, she must be held to have consented to it. As such, it is contended that there was an implied consent by Sadachi Ammal. We must, however, make it clear that no evidence is brought to our notice or even to the notice of the learned single judge, as to the contemporaneous or subsequent conduct of Sadachi Ammal relating to the deed Ex. A-5, to enable us to draw an inference that Sadachi Ammal had impliedly consented to it. Whether there was an implied consent or not to the document by Sadachi Ammal can only be decided on the basis of the conduct of the parties contemporaneous to the date of transaction or subsequent thereto. No evidence has been placed before us to indicate such a conduct on the part of Sadachi Ammal. THE right to seek partition accrued to Raman and Janaki only on the death of Sadachi Ammal and they have exercised that in the year 1981 itself. THErefore, it cannot be held that the plaintiffs have lost their right to claim their share in the suit properties. In the absence of any consent by Sadachi Ammal the said deed of settlement Ex. A-5 has been correctly held as effective to the extent of the share of Perumal Gounder.

(2.) AS far as the quantum of shares allotted by the trial court as is evident from para 14 of the judgment of the learned single judge that the parties themselves have submitted before the learned single judge, that the quantum of shares allotted is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. That being so, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the connected appeal also, which relates to some of the items of the suit properties. For the reasons given above, both the appeals are dismissed.