Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In N.R. Raghvachariar's Hindu Law, edited by late Prof. S. Venkataraman, who himself was an authority on Hindu Law, stated at page 236 that a coparcener cannot transfer. his undivided interest without consideration. Such transfer is totally void. At page 237 it was stated that a gift of his interest by a coparcener being void altogether, there is no estoppel or other kinds of personal bar precluding the donor from asserting his rights to recover the transferred property. A gift by a major coparcener in favour of the minor coparcener was stated to be valid as an exception to the general principle. A Transaction of gift of a joint family property would be void in toto and would not bind even the donor.

12. In Dwarampudi Nagaratnamba v. Kunuku Ramayya and Anr. this Court held that under the Madras School of Mitakshera law by which. V was governed, he had no power to make gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to his concubine. But a gift by one coparcener of his undivided share to another coparcener, to the exclusion of the others is not invalid Venkata Subbammana v. Rathnamma AIR 1987 SC 1757. This Court in Mukund Singh v. Wazir Singh held that a gift of coparcener's property by a member is void. In other words it is settled law that a disposition intra vivos by gift of coparcenary property except either with the consent of other coparceners or between coparceners or in exceptional circumstances is void. Since the gift being not for consideration is void in toto and operates eo instentine during the life time of the donor, it is not a testamentary succession under Section 30 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act, therefore, brought about change in law of testamentary disposition of Hindu Coparcener of his interest in coparcenary properly governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law worked out in accordance with Section 55 read with Schedule III of Indian Succession Act or any other law in force to the above extent. The appellant, donee acquire no interest by devolution under the gift to represent the interest of the deceased plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Therefore, though for different reasons, we uphold the finding of the High Court in this behalf that the appellant is not a successor in interest by devolution by operation of Order 22 Rule 10. Accordingly we reject the claim of the appellant on that premise.

14. The immediate question is whether the first appellant is the daughter of Brahmadeo Singh. The High Court rejected her claim predominantly on two grounds; firstly that there was a discrepancy in the description o f the name of her husband and that at the tonsuring ceremony (Mundan) she was described to be the daughter of one Uma Shanker Singh. As regard the first ground is concerned, we find that it is wholly irrelevant and cuts no ice into her case. With regard to tonsurin, ceremony, said to be based on an entry found in a private record said to have been maintained before 30 years by the father of a witness. A private document produced from the custody of a private party though of 30 years old cannot have the same weight as a public document, nor be relied on to make a child bastard. One finds that such a precarious document cannot be used to deny the paternity of the child. Voluminous oral evidence of 11 witnesses was adduced to prove paternity of the appellant that her father is Brahmadeo Singh. No adequate attention was bestowed by the High Court to subject that evidence to close scrutiny. No valid ground were given to reject it. Therefore, without trenching into the Held of appreciation, we have gone through it and we find no good ground to reject the oral evidence. This apart the deceased himself described in 1963 the gemology attached to the plaint that Pavitri Devi is his daughter and her son as grandson. The High Court stated that there was no need to describe in the geomology of the females. Whether there existed the need or not, it now bears great relevance. As a fact, it establishes that he proclaimed that Pavitri Devi to be his daughter long before his death. In the gift deed also, though we find to be void, he reiterated her to be his daughter. That was almost one year prior to his death. We have no hesitation to hold that the evidence establishes that Pavitri Devi is the daughter of Brahmadeo Singh, She being the Class I heir succeeded to the estate of the deceased by intestate succession under Section 6 and she is entitled to represent the estate in the partition action. Accordingly by operation of Section 6 of the Act read with order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. she is entitled to represent the estate of the deceased. The application for substitution stand succeeded. She is brought on record as legal representative of the deceased appellant. The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits. The appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.