PANCHALI Vs. MANNI
LAWS(KER)-1962-8-15
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on August 10,1962

PANCHALI Appellant
VERSUS
MANNI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) COURT of the Munsiff of Tellicherry the appellants in A. S. No. 134 of 1959 of the COURT of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. Their prayer, negatived by both the courts below, was for re-delivery of property under S. 5 (2) of Madras Act, no. 22 of 1956.
(2.) SUB-section (4) of S. 5 of the Act provides that nothing contained in that section shall affect the rights of any bona fide transferee from the landlord. The sole question for determination in this case is whether a member of a marumakkathayam tarwad obtaining property in family partition can be considered to be a transferee within the meaning of sub-section (4) of S. S. It is common ground that if he can be so considered, the decision of the courts below has to be affirmed and that if he cannot be so considered, the decision of the courts below has to be reversed and this petition allowed. According to S. 5 of the T. P. Act, 1882, "transfer of property" means "an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself, or to himself and one or more other living persons. " That is a definition which we consider as useful and adequate for the construction of sub-section (4) of S. 5 of Madras Act, No. 22 of 1956. Whether a partition amounts to a transfer or not has been the subject of controversy. One view is that it is; the other, that it is not. Mulla states the controversy as follows: "a partition has been said to be a surrender of a portion of a joint right in exchange for a similar right of a co-sharer. From this analogy it has been concluded in some cases that a partition amounts to a transfer of property. In some other cases, however, it has been held that a partition is not an exchange and is not a transfer of property. " (Transfer of Property Act, 4th Edition, page 47 ).
(3.) THE view that appeals to us is the view embodied in narasetti Vankitapala Narasimhala v. Someswara Rao AIR. 1948 Mad. 505. In that case Patanjali Sastri, J. , had occasion to deal with the true nature of a partition. THE learned judge said: "the true nature of a partition is that each co-owner gets a specific property in lieu of his rights in all the joint properties; that is to say, each co-sharer renounces his rights in the other common properties in consideration of his getting exclusive right to and possession of specific properties in which the other co-owners renounced their rights. It is thus a renunciation of mutual rights and does not involve any transfer by one co-sharer of his interest in the properties to the others. " (Head note) In Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Sarasamma AIR. 1951 Mad. 213 Subba Rao, J. , surveyed the entire case-law on the subject and said: "the aforesaid discussion of the case-law on the subject brings out two divergent views: (1) Partition is a conversion of joint enjoyment into enjoyment in severality. The crucial test of a transfer by a person having a right in favour of a person having no right is not satisfied. There is no conveyance but a transformation of property, an allotment by virtue of his antecedent title as co-sharer. (2) it is a conveyance of a portion of joint right in exchange for a similar right from his co-sharer In our view, the latter view of a partition as a conveyance of a joint right involves an introduction of fiction and is also contrary to the fundamental conception of partition. Partition, therefore, is really a process in and by which a joint enjoyment is transformed into an enjoyment in severally. Each one of the sharers had an antecedent title and therefore, no conveyance is involved in the process as a conferment of a new title is not necessary. ";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.