Get Homework/Assignment Done

Homeworkping.com

Homework Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoring

https://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites

Table of ContentsTable of Cases............................................................................................................................ii

Table of Statutes.......................................................................................................................iii

List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................iv

Chapter I.....................................................................................................................................1

Introduction................................................................................................................................1

i

1.1 Overview..........................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Relevant Facts...........................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Issues.........................................................................................................................3

1.2 Theoretical Framework....................................................................................................4

1.3 Research Hypothesis........................................................................................................4

1.4 Research Scheme.............................................................................................................4

1.5 Research Methodology.....................................................................................................5

Chapter II...................................................................................................................................6

Issues arising out of Unilateral declaration to separate from the joint family...........................6

2.1 Unequivocal and Unilateral Declaration of the Intention to Sever from the Joint Family

................................................................................................................................................6

2.2 Whether the Communication to All the Members of the Joint Family is Necessary.......7

2.3 Whether the Unequivocal and Unilateral Declaration can be Withdrawn Once it is

Dispatched if it has not been Communicated to any Other Member of the Joint Family......8

2.4 Recent Developments.....................................................................................................10

Chapter III................................................................................................................................11

Conclusion................................................................................................................................11

TABLE OF CASES

A-Z Bazaars v Ministry of Agriculture, (1974) 4 SA 392 8

A. Raghavamma and Anr. v. Chenchamma and Anr., 1964 AIR 136 1-12

Chauhan Dajiji Baldevji v. Pithuji Galabji Chauhan and 20 Ors, (2011) 1 GLR 870 10

Dunmore v Alexander, (1830) 9 Sh 190 9

ii

Gian Chand and Brothers and Anr. v. Rattan Lal, MANU/SC/0015/2013 10

Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj, (1916) 18 BOMLR 621 6

Jaynarain Giri v. Girischunder Myti , 4 Cal. 434 : (5 I. a. 228 P. C.) 7

Kaliammal and Others v. K. Mayilsamy and Others, (2012) 7 MLJ 498 10

Kamepalli Avilam v. Mannem Venkataswamy, 1917 (13) MLJ 746 6

Man Singh v. Ram Kala and Ors, AIR 2011 SC 1542 10

Narayana Rao v. Purushotama Rao, 1917 (13) MLJ 746 6

Puttarangamma v. M. S. Ranganna, AIR 1968 SC 1018 8

Rama Ayyar v. Meenakshi Ammal , (1938) 1 MLJ 45 6

Sh . Sohan singh v. Shri Bishan Singh, (2011) 162 PLR 173 8

Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain, 35 ALL 80 : (40 I. A. 40 P. C.) 7

Tata Communications Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, MANU/TD/0160/2012 10

Union of India (UOI) v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr, (2012) 8 SCC 148 10

Wenkheim v Arndt, (1873) 1 JR 73 9

TABLE OF STATUTES

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The Indian Contract Act, 1872

iii

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

S. Section

Ed. Edition

Ibid Ibidem

MLJ Madras Law Journal

p. Page

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

v

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.1.1 Relevant Facts

The appellants and the respondents trace their interest and rights through their

geneology to one Veeranna who died in 1906. One of his sons Pitchayya, predeceased him in

1905 and it is alleged that sometime before his death Pitchayya took Venkayya, the son of his

brother Chimpirayya, in adoption. It is further alleged that a partition of the joint family

properties between Veeranna and his four sons took place. Venkayya died in 1938 having a

son Subbarao. Chimpirayya died in 1945 having executed a will whereunder he gave his

properties in equal shares to Subbarao and Kamalamma, the daughter of his predeceased

daughter. He also directed Raghavamma, the wife of his brother Pitchayya, to take possession

of the entire property belonging to him, manage it and to hand over the same to his two grand

children when they attained majority. Chimpirayya excluded his daughter-in-law

Chenchamma from management as well as inheritance. But Raghavamma allowed

Chenchamma to take possession of the property. Subbarao died in 1949. In 1930,

Raghavamma filed a suit for possession of the property impleading Chenchamma as the first

defendant, Kamalamma as the second defendant and Punnayya as the third defendant.1

1 Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr., 1964 AIR 136.

vi

vii

1.1.2 Issues

In the course of deciding the case the following issues arose:

Burden of proof and onus of proof

There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of

proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts but the onus of proof

shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. It is well

settled that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an

adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and

its validity.2

Unequivocal and unilateral declaration to separate

It is settled law that a member of a joint Hindu family can bring about his separation

in status by a definite and unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his intention to separate

himself from the family and enjoy his share in severality. One cannot declare or manifest his

mental state in a vaccum. To declare is to make known, to assert to others. Others must

necessarily be those affected by the said declaration. Therefore, a member of a joint Hindu

family seeking to separate himself from others will have to make known his intention to the

other members of the family from whom he seeks to separate. A declaration to be effective

should reach the person or persons affected by one process or other appropriate to a given

situation.3

Doctrine of Relation Back

Once the declaration is expressed and brought to the knowledge of the person

affected, it relates back to the date of declaration or the expression of intention to separate. As

the doctrine of relation back involves retroactivity, it cannot affect vested rights. It would

follow that, though the date of severance is that of manifestation of the intention to separate,

the rights accrued to others in the joint family property between the said manifestation and

the knowledge of it by the other members would be saved.4

2 Ibid.3 Ibid.4 Ibid.

viii

In the study on this case the primary focus of the researcher would be on the latter two

issues which arose in the case as they are of substantive importance in understanding of the

laws of succession in Hindus.

1.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The primary focus of this study is the leading case of Addagada Raghavamma and

Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.5 In the subject of family law this case is of great

relevance due to the two principles laid down in the case. The first principle relates to the

essentials of a valid separation by an unequivocal and unilateral declaration. The second

principle applies the doctrine of relation back to the problem of the ambiguous time frame in

which severance from the joint family has taken place.

1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

The unequivocal and unilateral declaration to separate need not be communicated to

all the members of the joint family.

The unequivocal and unilateral declaration can be withdrawn once it is dispatched if it

has not been communicated to any other member of the joint family.

1.4 RESEARCH SCHEME

In this project the researcher will be focusing on the leading case of Addagada

Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.6, following a systematic

approach including the division of this project in a number of chapters in order to conduct a

thorough study of the said case law. In the first chapter a brief introduction would be given

about the fact of the case and the various issues that arose in the case. The next chapter would

deal with the issue of unequivocal and unilateral declaration to sever from the joint property.

The third chapter would then deal in detail on the issue of relation back and its application in

family law of succession. Finally, the study would be concluded by giving a brief outline of

all the research conducted and issues resolved.

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research conducted is doctrinal in nature. Research was conducted using both

primary and secondary resources. Mainly, the researcher has referred to a number of case 5 1964 AIR 1366 Ibid.

ix

laws. There have been a few books and articles that were referred to back the study on the

various research questions. A number of articles were available on online and printed

journals. Finally the researcher has also referred to newspaper articles to understand the

recent practical developments on the issues.

x

CHAPTER II

ISSUES ARISING OUT OF UNILATERAL DECLARATION TO SEPARATE FROM THE JOINT FAMILY

2.1 UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF THE INTENTION TO SEVER FROM THE JOINT FAMILY

In Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj7 (1), the Judicial Committee observed that the

manifested intention must be "clearly intimated" to the other coparceners. Sir John Wallis C.

T., and Kumaraswami Sastri J. in Kamepalli Avilam v. Mannem Venkataswamy8, stated that

if a coparcener did not communicate, during his life time, his intention to become divided to

the other coparcener or coparceners, the mere declaration of his intention, though expressed

or manifested, did not affect a severance in status

Hence, it is settled law that in the case of a joint Hindu family subject to the law of the

Mitaksbara, a severance of estate is effected by an unequivocal and unilateral declaration of

the intention to sever on the part of one of the joint holders of his intention to bold his share

separately, even though no actual division takes place. Therefore to affect a severance of

status from a joint family unilaterally it is necessary that the intention to sever to sever from

the joint family is declared.

However, in the cases of Rama Ayyar v. Meenakshi Ammal9 and Narayana Rao v.

Purushotama Rao10, the judges in effect waived the necessity of the declaration of intention to

the other coparceners. This lead to a lot of confusion when the status of a joint family was

sought to be severed through an unilateral declaration. In the light of this fact it is imperative

to come to conclusive answer as to what constitutes a declaration.

7 (1916) 18 BOMLR 6218 1917 (13) MLJ 7469 (1938) 1 MLJ 4510 1917 (13) MLJ 746

xi

2.2 WHETHER THE COMMUNICATION TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT FAMILY IS NECESSARY

It is well established that there is no set rule for the way in which a declaration must

take place so as to grant it legal effect. In fact, declaration might be assumed in special

circumstances even if there is no explicit statement by the declarer by his mere actions.

In Jaynarain Giri v. Girischunder Myti11, the Privy Council regarded the conduct of

one of the two members of a joint family "when he left the joint residence and withdrew

himself from commensality as indicating a fixed determination henceforward to live separate

from his cousin" and treated the fact of his borrowing money for his separate maintenance, as

well as his making a will, as indicating, at all events, that he himself considered that a

separation had taken place." The conclusion was based on the inference of intention derivable

from the acts and declarations of the member who, it was alleged, had separated himself, and

not from the conduct or attitude of any other party.

Privy Council in Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain12, left them no option but to hold that a

member of a joint Hindu family became separated from the other members by the fact of

suing them for partition. It may be observed that no question of notice to the other members

of the intention of one member to separate was raised in the reference to the Full Bench.

Sadasiva Aiyar J., however, stated that the phrase "clearly expressed" in the decision of the

Privy Council meant "clearly expressed to the definite knowledge of the other coparceners."

In answering the reference the learned Judge stated his conclusion in these terms:

"A member of a joint Hindu family becomes separated from the other members by the

fact of suing them for partition and by the unequivocal declaration mentioned in the plaint in

that suit when such unequivocal declaration has been definitely expressed to the other

coparcener of coparceners through the Court or otherwise."

From the basis of these cases it can be safely said that a declaration to all members of

the joint family is not necessary. Moreover, this proposition is also not practical in the current

circumstances as the members of a joint family may be living in different corners of the

world and hence it is impossible for one to declare his intention individually to each and

every such member of the joint family.

11 4 Cal. 434 : (5 I. a. 228 P. C.)12 35 ALL 80 : (40 I. A. 40 P. C.)

xii

The only reasonable rule that can be deduced from the texts and the several decisions

of the Judicial Committee is that the declaration of an intention to divide on the part of a

member of the family should be clear and unequivocal and should be indicated, manifested,

or published in such a manner as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

2.3 WHETHER THE UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNILATERAL DECLARATION CAN BE WITHDRAWN ONCE IT IS DISPATCHED IF IT HAS NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE JOINT FAMILY

In the case of Puttarangamma v. M. S. Ranganna13, the question before the court was

whether a declaration made before the members of a joint family by a member to unilaterally

sever from the joint family could be revoked. On January 10, 1951 Savoy Ranganna had

decided to withdraw the two notices, Exs. A & E and he instructed the postal authorities not

to forward the notices to respondent no. 1 and other members of the joint family. It was

contended that there could be no severance of the joint family after Savoy Ranganna had

decided to withdraw the notices. However the judges did not accept this contention and stated

that there was a unilateral declaration of an intention by Savoy Ranganna to divide from the

joint family and there was sufficient communication of this intention to the other coparceners

and therefore in law there was in consequence a disruption or division of the status of the

joint family with effect from January 8, 1951. They added further that once a communication

of the intention is made which has resulted in the severance of the joint family status it was

not thereafter open to Savoy Ranganna to nullify its effect so as to restore the family to its

original joint status. If the intention of Savoy Ranganna had stood alone without giving rise to

any legal effect, it could, of course, be withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna, but having

communicated the intention, the divided status of the Hindu joint family had already come

into existence and the legal consequences had taken effect. It was not, therefore, possible for

Savoy Ranganna to get back to the old position by mere revocation of the intention. It was, of

course, possible for the members of the family by a subsequent agreement to reunite, but the

mere withdrawal of the unilateral declaration of the intention to separate which already had

resulted in the division in status cannot amount to an agreement to reunite. This case was

affirmed most recently in the case of Sh . Sohan singh v. Shri Bishan Singh 14. Hence it is

clear that once a declaration is made to the members of a joint family to sever from the joint

family it cannot be withdrawn.

13 AIR 1968 SC 101814 (2011) 162 PLR 173

xiii

However an interesting question of law has yet not been settled by the courts. Though

it is clear that once a declaration is made to the members of a joint family to sever from the

joint family it cannot be withdrawn there is no jurisprudence to clarify the position of the law

in a case when though the declaration has been dispatched but the declaration has not yet

reached the concerned members of the joint family and before it reaches communication is

done to the effect to revoke the said declaration.

For e.g. A decides to sever from the joint family definitely and unilaterally. He posts a

letter on 17.01.2013 to the other members declaring his intention to sever from the joint

family. Now, on 19.01.2013 he comes to know that the prices of the property are bound to

increase and hence he backtracks on his decision to separate from the joint family. He calls

up the members of the family before his post reaches them and issues a revocation stating that

all the members should not consider his declaration made by post as he no longer wants to

separate from the joint family.

Though there is no specific law laid down in Hindu law regarding this issue a

comparison may be drawn with the Indian contract law. According to Indian contract act and

the case laws interpreting it an acceptance may be revoked by a speedier mode of

communication if the acceptance has not been communicated.

This has been laid down in the Scottish case of Dunmore v Alexander15 (1830). This

view also is supported by decisions in: New Zealand in Wenkheim v Arndt16 (1873) and

South Africa in A-Z Bazaars v Ministry of Agriculture17 (1974). Hence according to contract

law a revocation would invalidate an acceptance if it reaches before the acceptance.

However, though an establish principle of contract law it cannot be blindly applied to

the delicate foundations of personal law of the Hindu joint family. There are two conflicting

interests in this scenario. First, the motivation to maintain the status quo of the joint family

and second, the practical limitations faced when a person indicates his intention to sever from

the joint family even if only to revoke it.

In such a situation it is advisable that the second interest prevails. The reason being

that a dysfunctional family is worse off than no family at all. If such an incident ever occurs

and it is granted that the declaration would have no effect than it would create problems 15  (1830) 9 Sh 19016 (1873) 1 JR 7317 (1974) 4 SA 392

xiv

within the family as the other members of the family would not be able to trust the member

who had indicated his intention to sever from the joint family. He will always be viewed with

suspicion and hence would be able to function as an efficient member of the family. This

would also have a negative impact on the family as a whole. On the other hand the granting

of severance would only affect that particular member of the joint family and the other

members can continue to live in perfect harmony.

2.4 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

The case of Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.18

has become an authority on a number of issues. This case has not yet been refuted and is cited

as conclusive on variety of matters such as evidence, severance of status, adoption, doctrine

of relation back, etc.

The concept of burden of proof explored in the case is considered conclusive and is

cited as an authority till date. It was so done in number of recent cases such as Gian Chand

and Brothers and Anr. v. Rattan Lal19, Tata Communications Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd.20, Union of India (UOI) v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr21, etc.

On the other hand the principles of succession laid down in the case are still followed

by the Indian courts as decisive on the matter. The case of followed in the recent cases of

Kaliammal and Others v. K. Mayilsamy and Others22, Chauhan Dajiji Baldevji v.

Pithuji Galabji Chauhan and 20 Ors23, Man Singh (D) By L.Rs. v. Ram Kala (D) By

L.Rs. and Ors24, etc.

Hence this case has held its own in the development of law in India and timeless

reference for the courts on jurisprudence in general and family law in particular.

18 1964 AIR 13619 MANU/SC/0015/201320 MANU/TD/0160/2012 21 (2012) 8 SCC 14822 (2012) 7 MLJ 49823 (2011) 1 GLR 87024 AIR 2011 SC 1542

xv

CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

The case of Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.25

has become a leading authority on a number of issues. This case has not yet been refuted and

is cited as conclusive on variety of matters such as evidence, severance of status, adoption,

doctrine of relation back, etc.

In the course of the study the following salient points were observed in relation to the

principles established by the case and the issues arising out of it:

There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of

proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts but the onus of

proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of

evidence.

a member of a joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself from others will have to

make known his intention to the other members of the family from whom he seeks to

separate. A declaration to be effective should reach the person or persons affected by

one process or other appropriate to a given situation.

Once the declaration is expressed and brought to the knowledge of the person

affected, it relates back to the date of declaration or the expression of intention to

separate. As the doctrine of relation back involves retroactivity, it cannot affect vested

rights.

Though the date of severance is that of manifestation of the intention to separate, the

rights accrued to others in the joint family property between the said manifestation

and the knowledge of it by the other members would be saved.

A declaration to all members of the joint family is not necessary. Moreover, this

proposition is also not practical in the current circumstances as the members of a joint

family may be living in different corners of the world and hence it is impossible for

25 1964 AIR 136

xvi

one to declare his intention individually to each and every such member of the joint

family.

Once a declaration is made to the members of a joint family to sever from the joint

family it cannot be withdrawn.

xvii