Skip to content


Orikkalappat Kannasseri Demodara Menon Vs. Orikkalappat Kannasseri Bhargavi Amma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1956)2MLJ311
AppellantOrikkalappat Kannasseri Demodara Menon
RespondentOrikkalappat Kannasseri Bhargavi Amma and ors.
Cases ReferredChakkara Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker
Excerpt:
- - there is nothing in the language of exhibit b-ii to indicate any particular intention that the persons mentioned alone shall enjoy, nor that that their heirs or that the children that may be born to them would not be entitled......one gopala menon and his sister, kunhikutti amma, who had no issue made a gift of item 1 to lakshmi amma, the wife of gopala menon and her four children, the second defendant, the first plaintiff, and defendants 1 and 10, who alone were born then. under the second document, the gift was by kunhikutti amma alone of item 2 and some other items to the same lakshmi amma and her children then living, the first plaintiff, defendants 1, 2, 10 and 11 and lakshmi alias amniukutti amma. in the suit for partition the question arose as to what shares each of the members of the family would be entitled to. if the properties were tavazhi properties then they would be entitled to shares on the per capita basis; but if the gifts were to individuals and not to the branch constituting the.....
Judgment:

Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.

1. The first defendant is the appellant and the short point for determination in this appeal is whether the interest acquired under two documents Exhibit B-11 which is a registration copy of the original of a gift deed, dated 18th December, 1914, and another gift deed of 1919 dealing with items 1 and 2 of plaint A Schedule is for the tavazhi or for the individual donees specified in the two documents. The trial Court took the view that it was not for the tavazhi but in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge took the contrary view.

2. Under Exhibit B-11 the father of the first plaintiff, one Gopala Menon and his sister, Kunhikutti Amma, who had no issue made a gift of item 1 to Lakshmi Amma, the wife of Gopala Menon and her four children, the second defendant, the first plaintiff, and defendants 1 and 10, who alone were born then. Under the second document, the gift was by Kunhikutti Amma alone of item 2 and some other items to the same Lakshmi Amma and her children then living, the first plaintiff, defendants 1, 2, 10 and 11 and Lakshmi alias Amniukutti Amma. In the suit for partition the question arose as to what shares each of the members of the family would be entitled to. If the properties were tavazhi properties then they would be entitled to shares on the per capita basis; but if the gifts were to individuals and not to the branch constituting the individuals, then the division must be on a per stirpes basis. The question is whether the presumption laid down in Chakkara Kantian v. Kunhi Pokker (1915) 29 M.L.J. 481 : I.L.R. Mad. 317, has to be applied to the first document, since it is a gift by Gopala Menon, though the sister joined, to his wife and children. Since all the members of the family then existing were included, there is no reason why the presumption laid down in Chakkara Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker (1915) 29 M.L.J. 481 : I.L.R. Mad. 317, should not be applied. There is nothing in the language of Exhibit B-II to indicate any particular intention that the persons mentioned alone shall enjoy, nor that that their heirs or that the children that may be born to them would not be entitled. As regards the second document, it is sufficient to point out that the gift was made to Lakshmi Amma and her children then existing, which indicates, especially when read along with the earlier document to which Kunhikutti Amma was a party as a donor, that the intention was to confer a benefit on the entire family and not on the individuals. Though there is no need to rely on the presumption in the case of the second document, the fact remains that the donees constituted a natural group and a gift to such a group constituting an entity must be construed to be gift to the entity as such and not to the individual members, thereof.

3. The view taken by the lower appellate Court is, therefore, correct. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave.


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