ADIYALATH KATHEESUMMA Vs. ADIYALATH BEECHU ALIAS UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law on the answer to which the learned Judges differed has been formulated by Satyanarayana Rao J., in these terms :

(2.) Under the Hindu law "partition" may mean and comprise both a division of right, i. e, a severance in the joint status, and a division of property. We are dealing in this case only with a division of right, or a severance of the joint status. This may result from an agreement between the members of the joint family or from any other act or conduct which, in law, would create a severance. An agreement is not the only mode by which a division in status can be brought about, the contrary View held by some of the early decisions being, no longer law:

(3.) I may preface my examination of the texts by observing that the ancient law givers far from encouraging the continuance of the joint family, recommended a partition mainly on religious grounds ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. "Let those who desire an increase of merit by the separate performance of worship for the gods and the. manes, divide." See also Manu, chap.IX-iii. The word "Dharma" in Sanskrit which I have translated as "merit" has reference to religious acts such as the performance of paneha mahayajnas, the sacra of the Romans. If the family is joint, worship of the gods, Vaisvadeva, Shradhas and the feeding of guests are all single for the whole family and the spiritual benefits derived therefrom are shared by all the members while if they separate, each performs these acts separately and acquires religious merit for himself in a much larger measure. I am not sure whether Seshagiri Aiyar J. had any textual authority in view when he observed in Soundararajan v. Arunachalam, 39 Mad. 159 at p. 186 : (A. I. R. (3) 1916 Mad, 117 (0 F. B.), as follows: