Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1963 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1963 (4) TMI 67 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the adoption of Venkayya was true and valid? Whether Pitchayya and Chimpirayya were divided as alleged by the plaintiff? Held that:- We cannot therefore hold that there is any such clear and unambiguous declaration of intention made by Chimpirayya to divide himself from Venkayya. In our view, it is implicit in the expression "declaration'.' that it should be to the knowledge of the person affected thereby. An uncommunicated declaration is no better than a mere formation or harbouring of an intention to separate. It becomes effective as a declaration only after its communication to the person or persons who would be affected thereby. In this appeal there are only two members in the joint family and it is not suggested that Subba Rao did not have the knowledge of the terms of the will after the death of Chimpirayya. In present case, it will have to be held that on the death of Chimpirayya his interest devolved on Subbarao and, therefore, his will, even if it could be relied upon for ascertaining his intention to separate from the family, could not convey his interest in the family property, as it has not been established that Subbarao or his guardian had knowledge of the contents of the said will before Chimpirayya died. Appeal dismissed.
|