CASE COMMENT

Puttarangamma and 2 others v. M. S. Ranganna and 3 others1

This judgement passed on 8 February 1968 is a case that deals with the question of the
division of a joint Hindu family. The question raised here was whether a declaration to sever
from the family once intimated to the family member can be unilaterally retracted. This is a
landmark judgement which draws on other important and relevant authorities to come to its
conclusion. There was also the question of communication of the intention of separation by a
member of the family dealt with in this case.

The facts of the case are that the petitioners and the respondents were part of a joint Hindu
family wherein the plaintiff Savoy Ranganna was the karta. He had four daughters who are
the appellants and the respondent No.4. Except one of the daughter rest of the three daughters
along with their family had been with the joint family. The plaintiff upon becoming very ill
entered a nursing home and to make sure his daughters’ interests were protected he issued a
notice on January 8, 1951, expressing his intention to separate from the family and this notice
was subsequently registered at the post office. At this certain well-wishers tried to intervene
and bring about a settlement and upon their advice, the plaintiff withdrew the notices. But
since no amicable agreement could be reached by the parties the plaintiff filed a suit on
January 13, 1951, for his share in the divided property. This suit was contested on the ground
that the petitioner was in a weak state of health and was in no position to fully comprehend
the contents of the suit that was filed by him. The other ground on which this suit was
contested was that the respondent had no knowledge of the notice issued by the plaintiff prior
to filing this suit and argued that since he withdrew the notices the separation did not take
effect. The trial court held that the plaint was valid as there was nothing in the notices and the
plaint to suggest otherwise and also held that there was sufficient communication regarding
the notice stating his clear and unequivocal declaration of his intention to become divided in
status to the respondent No.1, M. S. Ranganna. Consequently in the appeal to the Mysore
High Court, this decree was reversed by the bench and the case came before the Supreme
Court by the appeal.

There are a few issues that revolve around in this case, namely, whether Savoy Ranganna
died as a divided member of the Joint Family and whether the plaint filed on 13th January
was validly executed by Savoy Ranganna. Another issue dealt with by the court was whether
an agreement between the coparceners was required for a successful division. In this
judgement, the court held that the plaintiff died as a separated member of the joint family and
was entitled to his share in the family properties. It held that he had his unequivocal and
unilateral declaration of intention to sever from the joint family sufficiently communicated to
the respondent.

The court answered the question regarding the requirement of an agreement between the
coparceners for a division by stating it is not. It quoted a portion of the commentary of
Vijnaneswara where it effectively stated that in order for a partition to take place only the will
1
1968 AIR 1018.
of the person to sever is required and the question of agreement of the coparceners is
irrelevant. The court held that even it had no power to intervene in this aspect even to
question the reason for the separation and can only intervene if a dispute arises in the division
of the property. This was held in the case of Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj2

As to the question of the requirement of the communication of the person’s intention to

separate the court cited the case of Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma 3 and
held that communication is necessary for the effect of separation to take place but also held
that such communication is not restricted in its mode. The communication can vary
depending on the circumstances and it is not necessary for every member of the family to be
intimated. This is illustrated by the case of Jaynarain Giri v. Girischunder Myti 4 wherein a
member was held to be separated from the joint family by the virtue that he was living
separately and had borrowed money for his maintenance. The court considered such conduct
as an expression of the person’s will to separate from the family. Even the fact that suing the
family for partition is considered to be an expression of the will of the member to be
separated from the family.5 The rule that can be understood from these cases is that the
declaration of the intention to separate from the joint family should unequivocal and clear and
should be indicated or communicated in an appropriate manner depending on the
circumstances of the case in question.

The court further found the argument of the respondent that the plaintiff’s withdrawal of the
notice amounted to the joint family being restored to the original state to be groundless. The
court in its judgement says that the division of the joint family comes into effect the moment
the declaration of the intention to separate from the joint family is expressed in an
unequivocal manner in an appropriate way. The simple withdrawal cannot reverse it. The
withdrawal can be considered if it had not resulted in any legal consequences but once it does
it is not to be considered. The only way the separation can be undone is through an agreement
among all the members of the joint family which cannot be said to have arisen simply by the
fact that the member withdrew his declaration as it is no longer his decision alone. This stand
was also reaffirmed in a recent case, Sh. Sohan Singh v. Shri Bishan Singh.6

The issue regarding the validity of the plaint raised by the respondent was also not accepted
by the court under the evidence analysed by it. So now a question arises, is the withdrawal of
the notice in this case, which was discussed at some length, really a relevant factor? Going by
the reasoning held in the case of Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain bringing a suit against the family for
the partition of the estates is sufficient for a member of the family to be considered separate. Going by
this reasoning it is obvious that the plaintiff died a separate member and since the said withdrawal
came before the institution of this case and hence had no relevance in this case. The fact that this court

2
1916 Indlaw PC 39.
3
1964 AIR 136.
4
4 Cal. 434 : (5 I. a. 228 P. C.).
5
Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain , I.L.R. 35 All. 80. (P.C.).
6
PLR (2011) 2 173.
allowed this plaint to proceed should have been enough for the disruption of the joint family
properties. A similar stance has also been taken in the case of Syed Kasam v. Jorawar Singh. 7

As its concluding judgement the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the District Judge and
ordered the judgement of the Mysore High Court to be set aside.

S. Hasthisha Desikan

BC0190017

7
ILR 50 CAL 84