SIVA SUBRAMANIA PILLAI (DIED) Vs. PIRAMU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Bench which heard C.M.A. No. 322 of 1919 decided that the surrender by Subbammal in favour of the appellant, if bona fide, would have the effect of divesting the respondent of her right to the property. Having taken this view of the law (we are not at present concerned with deciding whether this view is correct or not), the learned Judges remanded the case for the further question being determined whether the surrender was bona fide or not. The District Judge who has heard the case has recorded a finding that the surrender was not bona fide. The finding is attacked before us in this appeal.

(2.) The effect of the learned Judge's judgment is this. Subbammal executed a surrender in favour of the appellant who was her son. As a part of the arrangement the appellant undertook to pay and did pay his sister, that is, Subbammal's daughter Arurnugatammal, a sum of Rs. 4,000. The District Judge, mainly from this fact, concludes that the surrender was not in good faith. To use his own words, "Legally this amounts to a partition of the estate between the surrenderer and surrenderee. "

(3.) The first question to determine in this appeal is : Does the surrender become inoperative by reason of the fact that a provision in favour of Subbammal's daughter was made ? If nothing further appeared than that a sum of Rs. 4,000 was paid to Arumugatammal, we would not be disposed to hold that the surrender is not valid. It is now authoritatively settled that the mere fact that some provision is made for the benefit of the surrenderer does not render the surrender invalid. See Angamuthu Chetti V/s. Varadarajulu Chetti (1919) ILR 42M 854 : 37 MLJ 384 (FB). Bhagwat Koer V/s. Dhanukdhari Prasad Singh (1919) ILR 47C 466 : 37 MLJ 513 (P.C.) and Sureshwar Misser V/s. Maheshrani Misraini (1920) ILR 48C 100 : 39 MLJ 161 (P.C). In this connection it is necessary to observe that the case put forward by the appellant was not that in fact Rs. 4,000 was paid to his sister as a part of the arrangement and that that payment would not render the settlement bad, but, on the contrary, he wished to maintain that a debt having been due to the lady, it was discharged by payment of Rs. 4,000 at the time of the surrender. This contention is palpably false and we do not think it is necessary to add to the reasons that have been given by the District Judge in support of his finding. The evidence of Draviyam Pillai, as has been observed by the learned Judge, is utterly unreliable and we cannot act upon it. The very fact that this false contention was put forward indicates to some extent that the appellant did not regard the surrender as a bona fide surrender ; for his desire to conceal the true facts must in part be due to his conviction that the transaction was not above board. What then are the circumstances which induce us to take the view that the surrender is not bona fide ? Before dealing with this question, we shall just refer to a passage in the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Bhagwat Kaer V/s. Dhanukdhari Prasad Singh (1919) ILR 47C 466 : 37 MLJ 513 (P.C.). already referred to. This is how their Lordships state the law: This voluntary self-effacement is sometimes referred to as a surrender, sometimes as a relinquishment or abandonment of her rights ; and it may be effected by any process having that effect, provided that there is a bona fide and total renunciation of the widow's right to hold the property.