Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. As both the civil revision petitions raise common questions of law, they are dealt with together.

2. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2079 of 1965, his wife Sivakamasundari and two minor sons Rajaraman and Venkataramani constituted a family as defined in Section 3(14) of Madras Act LVIII of 1961. The petitioner had obtained extensive properties from his father out of which, he settled an extent of 49.76 acres in favour of his wife, Sivakamasundari by document dated 16th November, 1954, absolutely as an ante-nuptial arrangement. She in her turn sold some of the lands so settled on her by her husband and settled the rest of the properties an extent of 27-7 acres in favour of her minor son, Rajaraman on 7th November, 1959. Her action in disposing of the lands both by a sale to an outsider and by settlement in favour of her minor son, Rajaraman, was ratified by the petitioner by executing a document styled "partition release deed" dated 28th April, 1960, under which the petitioner had relinquished all his rights over the lands settled by his wife in favour of their son, Rajaraman. When proceedings were initiated in respect of the petitioner's holding under the said Act, it was contended by the petitioner before the Authorised Officer that, in view of the alleged partition release deed dated 28th April, 1960, the minor son Rajaraman should be treated as a divided member of the family as coming within the explanation to Section 3(14). The Authorised Officer was not inclined to treat the said document as a deed of partition for the minor Rajaraman got the property by virtue of a settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, from his mother and not from the father as a result of a partition. The Authorised Officer therefore included the said minor son Rajaram as a member of the petitioner's family and calculated the ceiling area by clubbing the property obtained by him under the settlement from the mother within the holding of the family. The petitioner had produced before the Authorised Officer an agreement dated 7th November, 1959, said to have been entered into by the petitioner and his wife wherein they had agreed to recognise the settlement deed executed by the petitioner's wife in favour of one of the minor sons as a partition arrangement. The said unregistered agreement was rejected by the Authorised Officer on the ground that no reliance can be placed on that document especially when the existence of such an agreement has not been referred to in the subsequent release deed dated 28th April, 1960. As against the decision of the Authorised Officer treating the entire hands held by the petitioner and his minor son Rajaraman as the holding of the family and fixing the ceiling limit on that basis, an appeal was filed before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal also agreed with the view taken by the Authorised Officer that there has been no partition between the petitioner and his minor son Rajaraman either as a result of the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959 or as a result of the so-called partition release deed dated 28th April, 1960. This revision is directed against the concurrent view of the lower authorities.

3. Two contentions have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this case : (1) that minor Rajaraman should not be included as a member of the family of the petitioner as the combined effect of the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, and the partition release deed dated 28th April, 1960 makes him a divided member of the family and (2) that even if he is treated as a member of the petitioner's family, his individual holding obtained by him through his mother under the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, should not be taken to be a part of the holding of the family for purposes of fixing the ceiling area under Section 5 of the Act.

5. As regards the first contention in C.R.P. No. 2079 of 1965, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, executed by the petitioner's wife in favour of her minor son, Rajaraman should be construed in the light of the agreement entered into between the petitioner land his wife on the same day and if it is so construed the gift made under the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, should be taken to be in lieu of the minor's share in the joint family property and the subsequent document dated 28th April, 1960, made it abundantly clear that the petitioner ratified the settlement deed earlier executed by his wife on 7th November, 1959 only as a partition arrangement and not as independent gift of the properties by his wife. It is seen that by the earlier document dated 6th November, 1954 the petitioner settled 48 acres and odd in favour of his wife absolutely and no rights have been reserved for the settlor thereunder and that the settlee in her turn sold some of the properties as owner and settled the rest of the properties in favour of her minor son, Rajaraman. Therefore Rajaraman took the property under the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, from the mother and not from the petitioner in recognition of his right to partition in the joint family properties. The property which came to the minor by virtue of the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, was not the joint family property on that date and it was the property of the mother. Hence it is not possible to say that the minor Rajaraman took the property under the settlement deed as a partition arrangement in lieu of his share in the joint family properties. The so-called partition release deed dated 28th April, 1960 executed by the petitioner could not be treated as a partition deed between the petitioner and his minor son. The unregistered agreement said to have been executed between the petitioner and his wife on 7th November, 1959, cannot bind the minor as the right of a grantee-under the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959 cannot be curtailed with reference to the recitals under the said agreement. If the petitioner and his wife wanted to treat the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959 as allotment of properties to the minor in lieu of his share in the joint family properties, nothing prevented the petitioner or his wife from making it clear by suitable recitals in the settlement itself. The fact that there is no reference to the agreement in the latter release deed seems to throw considerable doubt as to the truth and existence of the unregistered agreement dated 7th November, 1959. I am, therefore, in entire agreement with the authorities below that the documents produced in the case did not establish that there has been a partition by means of a registered instrument between the petitioner and his minor son, so as to exclude him from the petitioner's family. It was also faintly contended by the learned. Counsel that under the personal law of the parties a mere unequivocal declaration of the intention to divide would be sufficient to effect a division in a Hindu Joint family, that in the case of a Hindu father he has himself the power to effect a division between him and his son and that in this case the registered release deed dated 28th April, 1960, executed by the petitioner can be treated as a registered partition, deed. But a perusal of the so-called partition release deed shows that it refers to a division that had taken place between the petitioner and Rajaraman on 7th November, 1959 and that their partition has become complete on the execution of the settlement deed by the petitioner's wife. But as already said, if that was the intention of the parties in executing the settlement deed in favour of the minor son, it could have been made clear even in the settlement deed itself. Further, if the parties intended to treat the settlement deed dated 7th November, 1959, as a complete partition between the petitioner and his minor son, the so-called partition release deed dated 28th April, 1960, is quite unnecessary and purposeless. Hence there is considerable justification for the comment made be the Land Tribunal that the so-called partition release deed should have been created belatedly to buttress a claim that there has been a partition at an anterior point of time, to take advantage of the explanation to Section 3(14) of the Act. As already stated the release deed dated 28th April, 1960, refers to a completed partition said to have taken place between the petitioner and his son even on 7th November, 1959 when the settlement deed was executed by the petitioner's wife in favour of her minor son. But the settlement deed executed by the petitioner's wife or the so called agreement executed by the petitioner and his wife cannot, by any stretch of imagination be construed as effecting a valid division between the petitioner and his son. I therefore reject the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner in C.R.P No. 2079 of 1965.