1951 (12) TMI 16 - SC - Indian Laws

Family Property Rights Upheld; Stridhanam Confirmed for Grand-daughters

Chinnathayi Versus Kulasekara Pandiya Naicker and Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the Zamindari remained joint family property, with Rajaya of the third branch entitled to it. ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to the Zamindari.2. Status of Boothipuram village.3. Status of Pannai lands and buildings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to the Zamindari:The main contention revolved around whether the Zamindari of Bodinaickanur became the separate property of Kandasami and subsequently his son Kamaraja II, or if it retained its character as joint family property. The High Court disallowed the widow's claim that the Zamindari became separate property by the 1890 arrangement, stating that the documents (Exhibits P-17 and P-18) did not change the estate's character from an impartible estate of a joint family to an estate owned individually by Kandasami. The High Court and the Supreme Court concurred that Kandasami could not unilaterally convert the estate into his private property. The argument that the family separated in 1890 and divided the properties was also rejected. The Supreme Court emphasized that for an impartible estate to cease being joint family property, there must be a clear intention to renounce the right of succession, which was not evident here. The statements made in 1889 and 1890 indicated no intention to renounce heirship. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the Zamindari remained joint family property, and Rajaya of the third branch was entitled to it under the rule of succession.2. Status of Boothipuram Village:The High Court and the Supreme Court considered whether Boothipuram village remained part of the Zamindari or became Kandasami's self-acquired property by the 1890 compromise (Exhibit P-18). The High Court found that all family branches agreed to Kandasami having Boothipuram as his private property, thus separating it from the Zamindari estate. This decision was based on the family's common consent, and it was concluded that Boothipuram became Kandasami's separate property. Consequently, on Kandasami's death, it devolved on his son by succession, and Chinnathayi, his widow, had a widow's estate in it after her husband's death. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the family arrangement was accepted and acted upon by all members.3. Status of Pannai Lands and Buildings:Both lower courts held that under the 1890 family arrangement, the Pannai lands became the stridhanam of Kamuluammal, the widow, and passed on to her grand-daughters, Chinnathayi and Periathayi, as stridhanam heirs. The deed of release executed by the two sisters in 1934 was found to be vitiated by fraud and not binding. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that Kamuluammal accepted Kandasami's title to the estate in exchange for the Zamindari for her lifetime and the Pannai lands and buildings absolutely. Kandasami's inheritance allowed him to alienate these lands to Kamuluammal, making her the absolute owner. The lands thus ceased to be part of the joint family estate. The Supreme Court affirmed that the widow, Chinnathayi, was entitled to possession of these lands, and no other person had any right to them.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment that Rajaya of the third branch was entitled to the Zamindari, Boothipuram village became Kandasami's separate property, and the Pannai lands and buildings were the stridhanam of Kamuluammal and passed to her grand-daughters. The appeals were dismissed with costs.