R Janakiammal Versus S K Kumarasamy(Deceased)

Date of judgement
01/07/2021

Judge
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Parties
Appellant - R. JANAKIAMMAL
Respondent - S.K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

Subject

Whether the suit is not maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC?

Overview

• The plaintiff, S.R. Somasundaram and his mother, Janakiammal who are the appellants in these two appeals belong to a branch of Rangasamy Gounder whereas the other two branches are of S.K. Kumarasamy, D­1 and S.K. Chinnasamy, D­4.
• Three brothers with their father A.V. Kandasamy Gounder were residing as a joint family in an ancestral house at Sedapalayam Hamlet, Karumathampatti Village, Palladam Taluk, District Coimbatore.
• Rangasamy and others received a land measuring 86.72 acres by partition deed executed on 27.09.1953 between late A.V. Kandasamy Gounder and Ponnammal, the junior wife of Kandasamy Gounder, his first wife, Senniamalai, son of Kandasamy Gounder from first wife, Rangasamy Gounder, S.K. Kumarasamy, S.K. Chinnasamy, all sons of the second wife of Kandasamy.
• In this case, three brothers signed a partition on November 7, 1960. In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a residence purchased in 1979 is a joint family property or not. According to the appellant, the partition dated 07.11.1960 was entered between three brothers in order to safeguard the landed property from the Land Ceiling Act, and there was no purpose of splitting each branch and causing a change in joint family status.
• It was claimed that three brothers reunited to form a Joint Hindu Family, which was adequately demonstrated by the participants' actions and conducts after November 7, 1960.
• The claim was dismissed by the trial court in a ruling dated September 30, 1997. The trial court upheld defendants Nos. 1–3's guilty plea, which was banned by Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. The division deed dated 07.11.1960 and the agreement of 08.03.1981 were likewise upheld by the trial court.
• The High Court, on the other hand, stated that appeals might be decided based on the findings to be recorded on the aforementioned point for consideration, but that it had not formulated any other point for consideration, despite the fact that the respective attorneys had presented substantial arguments.
• The High Court decided that the compromise decision dated 06.08.1984 in Suit No.37 of 1984 was lawful after examining the views of the respective lawyers. The plaintiff failed to prove that any fraud was performed. The plaintiff also failed to show that they issued any guarantee to Punjab National Bank in 1984 when they took out a loan.

Legal provision

• Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC

Judgement Analysis

• 'A reunion in the estate, properly termed, can only take place between those who were parties to the original division,' according to who may reunite. It appears that every person who was a party to the original partition can get together.
• Only males are allowed to reunite. The effect of a reunion is to restore the reunited members to their previous position as members of a single Hindu family. Reunion requires the following intention: To be considered a reunion, the parties must intend to reconnect in estate and interest.
• The bench cited Palani Ammal Vs. Muthuvenkatacharla Moniagar and Ors., AIR 1925 PC 49, in which it was held that if a joint Hindu family separates, the family or any of its members may agree to reunite as a joint Hindu family, but that such reunification is of a very rare occurrence for obvious reasons, which would apply in many cases under Mitakshara law, and that when it does occur, it must be strictly enforced.
• The court also noted that in Mukku Venkataramayya Vs. Mukku Tatayya and Ors., AIR 1943 Mad. 538, it was stated that in order to establish reunion, it is necessary to show not only that the parties had previously divided, lived, or traded together, but that they did so with the intent of thereby altering their status and forming a joint estate with all its usual incidents. The Supreme Court has supported this view in Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287, according to the court.
• The appeal was upheld, and the court ruled that all three branches had an equal share of the Tatabad residential property.

Conclusion

Taking into account the facts of the case, the bench determined that in 1979, when residential property in Tatabad was obtained in the name of one brother, all three branches of the joint Hindu family were members of the same family, and the house property purchased in the name of one member of the joint Hindu family was for the benefit of all. The court also stated that a member of a combined Hindu family can file separate returns under both the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act and that filing such returns was not proof of the family's status.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement