1949 (10) TMI 7 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Rules Inheritance as Tenants-in-Common; Plaintiff Granted Decree for Partition

Godavari Lakshminarasamma Versus Godavari Rama Brahman and Ors.

The court determined that the properties inherited by the plaintiff's husband and his brother were held as tenants-in-common, not joint tenants with ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the properties inherited by the plaintiff's husband and his brother from their maternal grandfather were held as tenants-in-common or joint tenants with rights of survivorship.2. Whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by adverse possession.3. Whether items 7, 10, and 11 of Schedule A were part of the maternal grandfather's estate.4. The validity of the decree concerning the division of properties inherited from the maternal grandfather.5. The validity and effect of a gift and subsequent exchange of property by defendant 1.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Tenants-in-Common vs. Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship:The primary issue was whether the properties inherited by the plaintiff's husband and his brother from their maternal grandfather were held as tenants-in-common or joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The court referred to the ruling in Venkayamma v. Venkataramanayamma, which held that the rule of survivorship applies to property inherited by two brothers from their maternal grandfather when they were members of an undivided Hindu family. However, the court acknowledged that subsequent decisions of the Judicial Committee had practically destroyed the authority of Venkayamma as a legal precedent. The court concluded that the property inherited by the plaintiff's husband and defendant 1 was taken as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Consequently, the plaintiff became entitled to her husband's moiety upon his death.2. Adverse Possession:The court examined whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by adverse possession. Defendant 1 claimed exclusive enjoyment of the property since the plaintiff's husband's death in 1926 or 1927, while the suit was filed in November 1943. The court emphasized that possession by one co-owner is considered possession by all co-owners unless there is an open and unequivocal denial of the other co-owner's title. The court found no evidence of ouster or exclusion, noting that the plaintiff continued to stay in the family house even after her husband's death. Thus, the court held that the suit was not barred by adverse possession.3. Items 7, 10, and 11 of Schedule A:The court determined that items 7, 10, and 11 originally belonged to Ramabrahmam's sister, Kammamma, who had a limited interest as a widow. These properties were conveyed to Ramabrahmam and subsequently to the plaintiff's husband and defendant 1. A reversioner of Kammamma's husband filed a suit, which ended in a compromise decree awarding a third share to the reversioner and the remaining two-thirds to the plaintiff's husband and defendant 1. The court concluded that the ancestral character of these properties was not lost due to subsequent events and upheld the trial judge's decision that the plaintiff's claim must fail regarding these three items.4. Validity of the Decree Concerning Property Division:The court analyzed whether the compromise decree concerning the division of properties inherited from the maternal grandfather resulted in a division between the brothers. The court concluded that the primary objective of the compromise was to award a third share to the reversioner and leave the remaining property to the plaintiff's husband and defendant 1. Therefore, the court held that the decree did not result in a division between the brothers concerning these properties.5. Validity and Effect of Gift and Exchange of Property:The court addressed the validity of a gift made by defendant 1 of 4 acres of ancestral property to the plaintiff's daughter at the time of her marriage and the subsequent exchange of this property for 5 acres of the suit property. The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the gift was reasonable and valid. However, the court directed that in the division of properties between the plaintiff and defendant 1, the properties in possession of defendant 5 under the exchange deed should be allotted to the share of defendant 1.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the lower court was set aside except regarding items 7, 10, and 11 of Schedule A. The plaintiff was granted a decree for partition and separate possession of a half share in the remaining properties. The court also provided directions for the division of properties, ensuring that the properties in possession of defendant 5 under the exchange deed were allotted to defendant 1's share. The plaintiff was directed to pay the court fee due on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal to the government and recover proportionate court fees from the contesting defendants.