1939 (11) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of minor coparceners to sue for maintenance.
2. Entitlement of major coparceners to sue for maintenance.
3. Entitlement of a daughter to sue for maintenance against the family manager.
4. Legal precedents and interpretations of Hindu law regarding maintenance and partition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Minor Coparceners to Sue for Maintenance:
The judgment clarified that minor coparceners are entitled to sue for maintenance out of the joint family property. The learned Judge stated, "Every member of an undivided Hindu family is entitled to be maintained out of the family estate." The judgment rejected the notion that a minor coparcener must couple a prayer for maintenance with a prayer for partition. The court emphasized that denying a minor coparcener the right to sue for maintenance unless he also sues for partition is not providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice done to him. The judgment cited the Privy Council decisions in Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapur and Vellayappa Cheiti v. Natarajan, which recognized the inherent right of coparceners to be maintained out of the common property.

2. Entitlement of Major Coparceners to Sue for Maintenance:
The judgment overturned the opinion that a major coparcener cannot sue for maintenance and must instead sue for partition. The court held that a major coparcener is entitled to sue for maintenance, stating, "If a major coparcener is entitled to sue for maintenance, and I hold that he is, the right cannot be denied to a minor coparcener." The judgment criticized the reliance on statements in Mayne's and Mulla's Hindu Law, which were based on certain Bombay High Court observations, and instead supported the view established by the Privy Council that coparceners have a right to maintenance until partition is accomplished.

3. Entitlement of a Daughter to Sue for Maintenance Against the Family Manager:
The judgment rejected the view that a daughter must sue her father for maintenance out of his properties and cannot maintain a suit against the family manager. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Subbayya v. Anantaramayya, which established that a daughter's right to maintenance is based on her interest in the joint family property, not merely on the father's natural obligation. The judgment stated, "The statement that a daughter cannot sue the manager of the family, but must proceed against her own father is also unsupported by authority."

4. Legal Precedents and Interpretations of Hindu Law Regarding Maintenance and Partition:
The judgment critically examined various legal precedents and interpretations of Hindu law. It highlighted the discrepancies in the Bombay High Court's decisions, which suggested that the right to maintenance is in lieu of a right to share in the estate. The court found these views inconsistent with the principles established by the Privy Council. The judgment emphasized that the right to maintenance is an inherent quality of coparcenary property and should not be denied merely because the coparcener has the right to sue for partition. The judgment cited authoritative texts and cases, including the second Pithapur case and Vellayappa Chetti v. Natarajan, to support its conclusions.

Conclusion:
The judgment concluded that both minor and major coparceners are entitled to sue for maintenance out of the joint family property without necessarily suing for partition. It also affirmed that a daughter can maintain a suit for maintenance against the family manager based on her interest in the joint family property. The judgment remanded the case to the Subordinate Judge for further proceedings, emphasizing the need to address all issues according to law. The appellants were awarded costs and the refund of court fees.

Separate Judgment Analysis:
Krishna Swamy Ayyangar, J.:
Justice Krishna Swamy Ayyangar concurred with the main judgment but added further analysis. He questioned the soundness of the propositions that a member's right to maintenance is only recognized where he cannot enforce partition and that an unmarried minor daughter's right to maintenance is enforceable only against the father. He emphasized that the right to maintenance arises from membership in a joint family possessing joint property. He also reiterated that the daughter's right to maintenance is based on the joint family property, not solely on the father's personal obligation. The judgment reinforced the principle that the right to maintenance is an inherent quality of coparcenary property, as established by the Privy Council and other authoritative texts.