THAMMA VENKATA SUBBAMMA DEAD Vs. THAMMA RATTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that is involved in this appeal by special leave is whether a gift by a coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener is void or not.

(2.) In order to consider the point it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. Two brothers, Rami Reddy and Veera Reddy and the sons and daughters of the latter being respondents Nos. 2 to 7 herein, constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. On May 4, 1959, Rami Reddy executed a deed of settlement (Ex. A-1) in favour of his brother, Veera Reddy, conveying his entire undivided interest in the coparcenary reserving a life interest to himself and also providing that after his death, his brother should maintain his wife. Rami Reddy died in January, 1965 and shortly thereafter his brother Veera Reddy also died in March, 1965. It appears that after the death of Rami Reddy, differences arose between his widow and the respondent No. 1, as a result of which the widow of Rami Reddy (since deceased) demanded a partition of her husband's share which was gifted by her husband to his brother Veera Reddy. Thereafter, she filed a suit out of which this appeal arises for partition and recovery of her husband's share after cancelling the deed of. settlement (Ex. A-1), inter alia on the ground that it was a void document under the Hindu Law. The suit was contested by the respondents Nos. 1 to 7. The respondent No. 3 filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. The other respondents adopted the written statement of the respondent No. 3.

(3.) The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties held, inter alia, that the deed of settlement was void and inoperative under the Hindu Law in the absence of consent of the other coparceners. Further, it was held by the trial Court that even assuming that the deed of settlement was valid and binding on the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to the alternative relief of maintenance and separate residence under S. 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the plaintiff's husband was legally bound to maintain his wife and the plaintiff was entitled to enforce her maintenance claim with a charge on the properties in suit. In that view of the matter the trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per annum towards her maintenance and separate residence with a charge on the A and B Schedule properties of the plaint. The suit /was, accordingly, decreed by the trial Court.