Instances of Dispossession of Inheritance

R Muthammal (Died) & anr vs. Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Tirchendur & others

Filed under:Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928 Article 133 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: R Muthammal (Died) and another
Respondent:Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Tirchendur and others
Citation: AIR 1960 Supreme Court 601
Court:In the Supreme Court of India
Judges:SK Das, AK Sarkar and M Hidayathullah

This case came up as an appeal against the order of the High Court of Madras.

(Note:In the High Court R Muthammal had filed the application on behalf of her deceased husband Ramasami Pillai. After the death of R Muthammal her daughter, Parameswari Thayammal, continued with the case.)

Facts

A certain Meenakshisundaram executed a registered will and according to which, he left his entire property to his only son, M Picha Pillai with the condition that should he die childless, the property was to go to the Devasthanam (a temple).

After M Picha Pillai’s death, three claimants including the Devasthanam claimed the property. The other two claimants asserted that the gift was void. Consequently Devasthanam filed a case where in several legal heirs of Picha Pillai were made the defendants. Out of these, all leaving two assigned their interests in the property to Devasthanam when the case was still pending.

The decree was passed in favor of Devasthanam. By compromise between the original three claimants, Devasthanam received 5/6th of the share of the property and 1/6th was divided among the other two. The Devasthanam then filed an appeal in the High Court against the dismissal of the suit in respect to the 1/6th portion of the share and failed. An appeal was then taken to the Judicial Committee, which also failed.

The Devasthanam then filed this appeal and one of the contentions raised by them was that Ramasami Pillai was not entitled to a share in the property as an heir of Picha Pillai on the grounds that he was a ‘lunatic’.

In response to this contention, Ramasami’s wife and guardian contended that he was not a lunatic but only a person of weak intellect. This point was the main argument in this appeal. According to the Trial Court Judge, Ramasami Pillai’s appeal was correct and proved. The High Court, on the other hand held that his mental defect amounted to lunacy and this disentitled him to a share.

R Muthammal then filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court.

The two main questions that were raised before the Court were:

• Whether Ramasami Pillai was a lunatic within the Hindu law tests?
• Whether this lunacy was required to be proved to have been congenital to disentitle Ramasami Pillai to succeed his father?

Observations by the Court

The Court examined the evidence in the case and held that it was satisfied with the opinion of the High Court. During the course of the arguments, it was contended that Ramasami Pillai had attended school. The Court however opined that there was nothing to show that he had actually profited from this attempt to educate him.

It was also contended that his father had left two documents in which he had released his claim to certain properties in favor of his four sons. In this document, Ramasami’s name had also been referred to but no mention had been made about his mental condition. Similarly the other document also did not mention anything about his mental condition.

The Court dismissed this argument on two grounds. Firstly, it was mentioned in the suit that Ramasami was quite sane till 1924 and that his mental condition deteriorated only the year after that. Secondly, the omission by his father to mention this fact could be attributed to the love and affection he felt for his child and that could not be taken as evidence. It was also contended that the other heirs recognized Ramasami’s right and had agreed to give him 1/9th of the share. The Court dismissed this argument as well.

According to the Court, the evidence related to Ramasami’s mental incapacity was voluminous. From June 1924 till his death numerous suits had been filed by different members of his family in which he was shown as a lunatic requiring the appointment of a guardian. Apart from this, on one occasion the Court had appointed the Head Clerk of the Court as his guardian and had asked him to report about his condition. The Head Clerk had visited Ramasami and had submitted his report in which he had described his own observations.

According to the Head Clerk, Ramasami had not even given his name and had appeared to be silent and moody. The Head Clerk therefore reported that his appearance was of a gloomy and sick person with a vacant look and that his inability to answer even the simple question about his name clearly showed that he was insane.

The Court then took up the next question regarding the matter of law that insanity must be congenital before a person could be excluded from inheritance. In reference to this the Court referred to a previous judgment of the Madras High Court in which it was ruled that insanity need not be congenital to create disability and that insanity at the time of succession was enough.

On the basis of these arguments the Court concluded that Ramasami Pillai was not entitled to succeed M Picha Pillai. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.

Sections Referred:

• Article 133 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

• Sri Subramaniaswami Temple vs. Ramaswami Pillai (’50) AIR 1950 PC 32 (V 37): 1950-
• 1 Mad LJ 300
• Deo Kishen vs. Budh Prakash (’83) ILR 5 All WN 105 (FB)
• Murarji Gokul Das vs. Parvatibai (’75-77) ILR Bom 177
• Wooma Pershad Roy vs. Grish Chunder Prochndo (’84) ILR 10 Cal 639
• Sanku vs. Puttamma (‘91) ILR 14 Mad 289
• Muthuswami vs. Meenammal (’20) AIR 1929 Mad 652 (2) (v 7): ILR 43 Mad 464