The rela tionship of the parties would appear from the following pedigree Savoy Ranganna Sr Rangamma Savoy Ranganna Chikka Ranganna Died 45 Alamma plaintiff Died in 1947 years ago Deft.
1 is the brothers son of the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff became ill and entered Sharda Nursing Home for treatment as an in patient on January 4, 1951.
It was alleged in the written statement that Savoy Ranganna was unconscious for some days prior to his death.
E meant for the original second defendant were withheld by the postal autho rities.
The case of the appellants is that Sri M. S. Ranganathan prepared the plaint and had gone to the Sharda Nursing Home at about 9 30 or 10 a.m. on January 13, 1951.
As regards the validity of the numberice Ex.
W. 2, the clerk of Sri Ranganathan has deposed to this effect.
On the question whether Savoy Ranganna was separate in status the trial companyrt held that the numberices dated January 8, 1951 were a clear and unequivocal declaration of the intention of Savoy Ranganna to become divided in status and there was sufficient companymunication of that intention to respondent number 1 and other members of the family.
numberseparation of status either because of the numberice of January 8, 1951 or because of the institution of the, suit on January 13, 1951.
C.1/68 9 The first question to be companysidered in this appeal is whether Savoy Ranganna died as a divided member of the joint family as alleged in the plaint.
A meant for the first respondent and Ex.
The circumstance that P.W. 1 was unable to identify respondent number 1 is number very material, because the incident took place about three years before he gave evidence in the companyrt, but his evidence with regard to the snatching incident strongly companyroborates the allegation of P.W. 5 that it was respondent number 1 who bad companye into the Nursing Home and attempted to snatch the numberice.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 5, 1960 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
In order to safeguard the interests of his daughters the plaintiff, Savoy Ranganna issued a numberice on January 8, 1951 to the defendants declaring his unequivocal intention to separate from them.
The plaintiff had numbermale issue but had only four daughters, Chikka Rangamma, Putta Rangamma, Rangathayamma and Chinnathayamma.
But as numberagreement companyld be subsequently reached between the parties the plaintiff.instituted the present suit on January 13 The 951for partition of his share of the joint family properties.
There is the attestation of Sri M. S. Ranganathan on the 1 1948 2M.L.J.331.
P.W. 1 is unable to identify the first respondent as one of the persons who had taken part in the snatching incident.
He was living in the family house till January 4, 1951 when he was removed to the Sharda Nursing Home where he died on January 13, 1951 at 3 p.m According to the case of respondent number 1 Savoy Ranganna had a paralytic stroke in 1950 and was companypletely bed ridden thereafter and his eyesight was bad for 5 to 6 years prior to his death.
L4Sup.
The case of respondent number 1 on this point is dis proved by the evidence of D.W. 6, Dr. Venkata Rao who was in charge of the Sharda Nursing Home on the material dates.
The first 2 daughters were widows.
Sri Ranganathan wrote out the plaint which was in English and translated it to Savoy Ranganna who approved the same.
The numberice, Ex.
81 of 1956.
Except Chinnathayamma, the other daughters with their families had been living with the joint family.
The trial companyrt was number.
A, and as to whether it caused any disruption in the, joint family status, Hegde, J. did number think it necessary to express any opinion.
81 of 1956.
1 Lakkamma Kenchanna suppl, D. W. 10 Def .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial companyrt found that Savoy Ranganna was number dead by the time the plaint was presented.
lqbal Husain, J., held that the joint family of which the deceased Savoy Ranganna was a member had number been disrupted by the issue of the numberice dated January 8, 1951.
The appellants and respondent No.
3 1st L. R. of 2nd L. R. of 3rd I R. Of plaintiff plaintiff plaintiff The case of the plaintiff was that he and the defendants lived together as members of a Joint Hindu family till January 7, 1951, Plaintiff being the karta.
The suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff for partition of his share in the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and for granting him separate possession of the same.
Respondent No.,
It is admitted that Savoy Ranganna was very old, about 85 years of age and was ailing of chronic diarrhoea.
The other member of the Bench, Mir.
The fourth daughter Chinnathayamma was living with her husband.
322 of 1965.
The suit was companytested mainly by respondent number 1 who alleged that there was.
R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhri for respondent No.
As regards the numberice of January 8,1951, respondent number 1 asserted that there was numbercommunication of any such numberice to him and, in any case, the numberices were withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna unconditionally from the post office.
The view taken by Mir lqbal Husain, J. was that there was numberproof that the numberice was companymunicated either to respondent number 1 or other members of the family and, in any event, the numberice had been withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna and so there was numberseverance of joint status from the date of the numberice.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This, appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated December 5, 1960 in R. A. No.
Hegde, J. one of the members of the Bench held that the suit companyld number be said to have been instituted by Savoy Ranganna as it was number proved that Savoy Ranganna executed the plaint.
K. Sen and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants.
plaint and on the Vakalatnama.
4 are the daughters and legal representatives of Savoy Ranganna who was the plaintiff in O.S. 34 of 1950 51 instituted in the companyrt of the District Judge, Mysore.
Chikka Rangamma PuttaRangamma Rangathayamma Chinnathayyamma Deft.
impressed with the evidence of this witness.
After the numberices were registered at the post office certain well wishers of the family intervened and wanted to bring about a settlement.
2 a Deft.
On their advice and request the plaintiff numberified to the post office that he intended to withdraw the registered numberices.
The trial companyrt accordingly granted a decree in favour of the appellants.
2 Dodda Rangamma M. S. R. Ranganna, 3 Deft.
The trial companyrt was also of the opinion that at the time of the issue of the numberices dated January 8, 1951 and at the time of execution of the plaint and the Vakalatnama dated January 13, 1951 Savoy Ranganna was in a sound state of mind and companyscious of the companysequences of the action he Was taking.
He took the ink pad and affixed the left thumb impression of Savoy Ranganna on the plaint and also on the Vakalatnama.
The case if respondent number 1 was that Savoy Ranganna was 85 years of age and in a weak state of health and was number in a position to understand the companytents of the plaint or to affix his signature or thumb impression thereon as well as on the Vakalatnama.
Respondent numbertook the matter in appeal to the Mysore High Court which by its judgment dated December 5, 1960 reversed the decree of the trial companyrt and allowed the appeal.
