1987 (5) TMI 32 - SC - Income Tax

whether a gift by a coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener is void or not? Held that - Rami Reddy made the gift for the common benefit of the donee as well as his sons as held by the High Court. Assuming that it is a renunciation in favour of one of the coparceners namely Veera Reddy such renunciation enures for the benefit of all other coparceners and not for the sole benefit of the coparcener in whose favour the renunciation was made. In our view the gift made by Rami Reddy to Veera Reddy should be construed as renunciation of his undivided interest in the coparcenary in favour of Veera Reddy and his sons who were the remaining coparceners. The gift was therefore valid construing the same as renunciation or relinquishment by Rami Reddy of his interest in the coparcenary and accordingly the consent of other coparceners was immaterial. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is affirmed though on a different ground. The appeal is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of a gift by a coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener.
2. Legal implications of the deed of settlement under Hindu law.
3. Entitlement to maintenance and separate residence under section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of a Gift by a Coparcener of His Undivided Coparcenary Interest:

The primary issue in this appeal was whether a coparcener can gift his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to another coparcener. The court examined the legal position under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, which governs the parties. The essence of a coparcenary under this school is the community of interest and unity of possession. A coparcener has an undivided interest in the property, which cannot be definitively quantified.

Historically, alienations of coparcenary property were permissible, but only for valuable consideration. The Privy Council in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Pershad Singh noted that alienations by gift were inconsistent with the strict theory of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Over time, courts, particularly in Madras, declared such alienations by gift void. This was supported by cases like Baba v. Timma and Ponnusami v. Thatha, which held that a coparcener could not make a gift of his undivided interest without the consent of other coparceners.

The court also referred to authoritative texts like Mayne's Hindu Law and Mulla's Hindu Law, which reiterated that a coparcener cannot dispose of his undivided interest by gift, except with the consent of other coparceners. The rationale behind this rule is to maintain the jointness of ownership and possession of the coparcenary property.

2. Legal Implications of the Deed of Settlement:

The trial court had held that the deed of settlement was void under Hindu law due to the absence of consent from other coparceners. However, the High Court disagreed, holding the deed valid. The High Court's decision was based on a previous judgment in Garimalla Suryakantam v. Garimella Suryanarayanamurthy, which stated that a gift of an undivided share is not void but only not binding on other coparceners. The Supreme Court, however, found this proposition difficult to accept, given the long-standing legal position that such gifts are void.

The court noted that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, relaxed the rule against alienation by gift to some extent, allowing disposition by will but not by gift. The court emphasized that any change to this strict rule should be made by the Legislature, not the judiciary.

3. Entitlement to Maintenance and Separate Residence:

The trial court had awarded the plaintiff maintenance and separate residence under section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, creating a charge on the suit properties. The High Court upheld this part of the trial court's decree, awarding the plaintiff maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per annum.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the High Court's conclusion, though on different grounds. The court construed the gift by Rami Reddy as a renunciation or relinquishment of his undivided interest in favor of Veera Reddy and his sons, making the gift valid. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →