Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose out of a partition suit instituted on 2 April 1942 in the Court of the District Munsif, Ongole, on behalf of Kakumanu Ramanna, a Hindu minor aged about two and a half years, by his maternal grandfather Rangayya as next friend. The first defendant was the minor's father, the second and third defendants were his sons by a deceased first wife, the fourth defendant was the second wife and mother of the minor, and the fifth defendant was the daughter of the first defendant and fourth defendant. The plaint alleged ill-treatment of the minor's mother, an unnecessary sale of family property to Akkul Venkatasubba Reddi on 9 May 1939, and purchase of items 2 and 11 on 1 June 1938 and 14 June 1939 with joint family funds but with sale deeds taken in the names of the second and third defendants to diminish the minor's assets. The defendants contended that items 2 and 11 were purchased with separate funds and that the family had debts of Rs 2,600. During pendency, in January 1943, the minor died, and his mother, the fourth defendant, was recorded as legal representative and transposed as second plaintiff. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but on remand found that the minor was born on 20 December 1939, after the impugned transactions, and held no cause of action arose from them. However, it also found that items 2 and 11 belonged to the joint family and there were no family debts. It dismissed the suit. The first appellate court affirmed. On second appeal, the Madras High Court held the defendants had falsely claimed items 2 and 11 were separate property, showing adverse interest, and that partition was beneficial to the minor; it granted a preliminary decree. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered two contentions: first, that the concurrent findings of the lower courts on benefit to the minor could not be reversed in second appeal; second, that the suit abated because the minor died before the court decided whether the suit was beneficial. The Court held the lower courts misdirected themselves by treating the pre-birth transactions as incapable of furnishing a cause of action; the real issue was whether the defendants acted adversely after the minor's birth by denying his title to items 2 and 11. Since they had persistently denied his title and alleged debts, the High Court rightly found the suit beneficial. On the abatement question, the Court held that a suit for partition instituted on behalf of a minor effects a severance in status from the date of institution, conditional on the court subsequently finding it beneficial; the court's decision does not create a right but recognises one that accrued at filing. Therefore, the death of the minor did not abate the suit, and the legal representative could continue and obtain a decree by showing the institution was beneficial. The suit was also held to relate to property, not a personal cause of action. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Severance of Status by Minor's Next Friend - Not mentioned - A suit for partition instituted on behalf of a Hindu minor coparcener brings about a severance in joint family status from the date of institution, conditional on the court subsequently holding that the institution was beneficial to the minor. The court's later decision does not create a new right but recognises a right that accrued when the action was filed. The death of the minor before hearing did not abate the suit; the legal representative was entitled to continue and obtain a decree by showing the institution was beneficial. Held that the suit did not abate. (Paras not mentioned) B) Civil Procedure - Abatement - Partition Suit Relating to Property Not Personal Cause of Action - Not mentioned - A suit for partition by a minor is one relating to property and not a personal cause of action, so it does not abate on the death of the minor plaintiff. The legal representative could continue the suit. Held that the suit did not abate on this ground. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for partition instituted on behalf of a Hindu minor abates on the death of the minor before the court decides whether the institution was beneficial to the minor; whether the legal representative can continue the suit; whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts on benefit to the minor
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit did not abate on the death of the minor plaintiff. It affirmed the High Court's finding that the suit was instituted for the benefit of the minor and that the legal representative was entitled to continue the suit and obtain a preliminary decree for partition.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- When a suit for partition is instituted on behalf of a Hindu minor
- a declaration by the next friend to become divided effects a severance in status from the date of institution
- subject to the court's finding that the action is beneficial
- the court's decision does not create a new right but recognises a right that accrued at institution
- the death of the minor before hearing does not abate the suit because the cause of action relates to property
- not a personal cause
- the legal representative can continue and obtain a decree by showing the institution was beneficial to the minor
