Skip to content


S.R.K. Ramaswami and anr. Vs. Komaravelu Goundan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1956)2MLJ200
AppellantS.R.K. Ramaswami and anr.
RespondentKomaravelu Goundan and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the fact that until now an argument like the present one has not been put forward shows that we need not seriously consider the point because such partitions or release deeds must have come up before courts many thousands of times......of his minor son bonafide enters into a transaction by which in lieu of immoveable property he takes cash, there is nothing to be said against such an act. on the other hand, the taking of cash with the object of dissipating it and depriving the minor of the wherewithal would amount to fraud and such a partition can later on be questioned by the minor as a fraudulent transaction. in the case before us there is nothing proved to show that instead of the one-sixth share in the lands, the father took cash as a result of any fraud or collusion. the fact that until now an argument like the present one has not been put forward shows that we need not seriously consider the point because such partitions or release deeds must have come up before courts many thousands of times. the second.....
Judgment:

Govinda Menon, J.

1. There is nothing in Hindu Law, either on principle or on authority, prohibiting a father, at the time of a family partition from taking cash instead of landed property for his own and his minor children's share. Mr. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar argues that partition necessarily connotes a division of property and therefore each member is entitled to have an aliquot share of the property separated and given to him. In case where a member is sui juris and can contract for himself, it is on his own volition that he gives up the right to property and takes money, but in the case of a minor, the father cannot give up the son's rights in exchange for money. But in our opinion when the father acting on behalf of his minor son bonafide enters into a transaction by which in lieu of immoveable property he takes cash, there is nothing to be said against such an act. On the other hand, the taking of cash with the object of dissipating it and depriving the minor of the wherewithal would amount to fraud and such a partition can later on be questioned by the minor as a fraudulent transaction. In the case before us there is nothing proved to show that instead of the one-sixth share in the lands, the father took cash as a result of any fraud or collusion. The fact that until now an argument like the present one has not been put forward shows that we need not seriously consider the point because such partitions or release deeds must have come up before Courts many thousands of times. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //