In Puttrangamma v. M S Ranganna Case, the Petitioners and defendants were living in a joint family. Petitioner Savoy Ranganna was the Karta and managed all the affairs. He was admitted to Sharda nursing home on 4th January 1951. On 8th January 1951, he issued a notice for the partition of joint family property. He had four daughters only.
FACTS:
The Petitioners and the Defendants were members of the same family. Savoy Ranganna, the petitioner, was the Karta and oversaw all the business. On January 4, 1951, he was admitted to Sharda Nursing Home.
He issued a notification for the partition of joint family property on January 8, 1951. He only has four daughters.
After the notifications were lodged at the post office, the family’s well-wishers intervened, hoping to agree.
The plaintiff told the post office that he wished to remove the registered notifications on their advice and request. However, because the parties could not reach an agreement, the plaintiff filed the current complaint on January 13, 1951, seeking division of his portion of the joint family holdings.
ISSUES:
Is it possible that Savoy Ranganna died as a schismatic (separate) member of the Joint Family?
Is Savoy Ranganna’s plaint, which was filed on January 13th, lawfully executed?
CONTENTIONS:
The action filed by the deceased plaintiff seeks a division of his share of the property and separate ownership of the same.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Bench: Ramaswami, V.
- It was not available to Savoy Ranganna to undo the effect of the notification of the intention, which resulted in the severance of the joint family status, in order to return the family to its original joint status.
- Savoy Ranganna might revoke his desire if it had stood alone and had no legal repercussions, but having conveyed his intention, the Hindu joint family’s split status had already come into reality, and the legal ramifications had already taken effect.
- Savoy Ranganna could not, therefore, return to his previous position by simply rescinding his plan.
- Of course, the family members can reconcile if they reach an agreement later, but the simple withdrawal of the unilateral decipherment of the decision to separate, which had already resulted in a status split, cannot be considered an agreement to reunite.
- A member of a joint Hindu family can enjoy his part in severalty by making a clear, unambiguous, and unilateral proclamation of his decision to remove himself from the family.
- For the disruption of the joint status, it is not essential to agree among all coparceners. It makes no difference whether the other coparceners agree to the separation in this circumstance.
- In each situation, the communication procedure may differ. It is not essential for the notification stating the desire to divide by one member of the joint family to be sent to or received by other members of the family in a formal manner.
DECISION:
- Ranganna died as a split member of the joint family, according to the court. The notification changed the joint family’s status on the 15th of January.
- As the respondent tries to take the notice from the doctor and also tries to persuade the plaintiff to cancel the notice, the notification was adequately transmitted.
- The plaintiff only submitted the plaint on January 13th because he was in a sound state and could grasp the contents of the plaint.
- CONCLUSION:
An explicit declaration affects severance of status in Mitakshara law by one of the joint holders of his decision to retain the share independently. However, the member of a joint Hindu family who wishes to separate himself from the rest of the family must inform the other members of the family of his desire.
Found Puttrangamma v. M S Ranganna 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
