Addagada Raghavamma vs Chenchamma Case Summary 1963 SC

Addagada Raghavamma vs Chenchamma Case Summary 1963 SC

Addagada Raghavamma vs Chenchamma’s case dealt with the partition and interpretation of a will regarding the Hindu Joint Family Property. Partition requires a unilateral, unequivocal, and clear declaration by a coparcener of his intention to bring about a severance in status, and in this case, the recitals in the will reveal a clear and unambiguous declaration of B1’s intention to divide, which should enable him to execute a will. Because the information dated back to the day the will was executed, B1 must be judged to have died apart from the family when he died, causing the will to act in his independent interest.

FACTS OF RAGHAVAMMA vs. CHENCHAMMA CASE:

  • Two brothers, B1 and B2, make up a Hindu joint family. B2W (Raghavamma/Plaintiff/Appellant) is B2’s widow, who predeceased B1. B1S, B1’s sole son, died before his father, leaving behind his widow B1SW (Chenchamma/defendant/respondent) and small son B1SS (Subbarao).
  • As a result, the coparcenary eventually comprised B1 and B1SS. B1 perished in 1945, leaving B1SS as the last surviving coparcener. B1SS died in 1949 before reaching the age of the majority.

LEGAL ISSUES:

  • Is it possible that the testator, in this case, grew estranged from his joint family prior to his death only because of the legal position that a will only applies from the date of the testator’s death?
  • Is it true that a member of a Hindu joint family is separated from the other members of the family simply by declaring his unequivocal desire to leave the family without informing the other members of the family?
  • Is awareness of such an expressed purpose by the other affected family members a required prerequisite for establishing a status division?

CONTENTIONS:

  1. Plaintiff’s contention

Plaintiff, who was to manage the properties according to Will’s directions, permitted the defendant to assume possession and handle the properties on behalf of her young son and B1DD after B1 (Legator) died, the plaintiff was entitled to his half-part of the property as stipulated in the Will.

  • Defendant’s contention

Defendant argued that because B1SS was the only surviving coparcener, his portion would pass to his mother through inheritance rather than according to the will’s instructions. Her major point was that when B1 performed this will, he was an undivided coparcener with his grandson (B1SS), and as an undivided coparcener, he did not have the legal authority to make a will for his undivided part in the Mitakshara coparcenary. As a result, the will was void and could not be carried out.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

  • Bench: Subbarao, K.
  • We may analyze the evolution of the theory of joint status severance in two parts:
    • A declaration of intent; and
    • Dissemination to others who may be affected.
  • In terms of the first component, the law is clear: a severance of joint status is a matter of individual discretion, and in order to achieve that state, an unmistakable and unambiguous declaration to that effect must be made, even if no real separation occurs. Because severance is a mental state, and the statement is only an expression of that mental state, severance does indeed arise from the simple proclamation.

DECISION:

In terms of the second element, the Supreme Court stated it is inherent in the idea of “declaration” that it is brought to the attention of those who are impacted by it. It means the other coparceners must be “clearly informed” of the declared purpose. If a coparcener did not transmit his desire to be separated from other coparceners during his lifetime, the simple statement of his desire, stated or manifested, did not result in severance in status.

CONCLUSION:

Even though the executants’ desire to separate is inferred in the “will,” partition cannot be effective unless the other members are aware of the intention. Before the testator died, neither the minor coparcener (Subbarao) nor his guardian (mother-Chenchamma) was aware of the contents of the “Will.” The plaintiff’s whole case failed because he failed to prove the factum of division, and she could not claim possession of the assets because they were devolved upon the minor lone surviving coparcener (Subbarao) and, after his death, upon his guardian, i.e. his mother, by survivorship (Chenchemma).

Found Addagada Raghavamma vs Chenchamma Case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Ankit Kumar

Ankit Kumar

See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!