{"id":131521,"date":"1961-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961"},"modified":"2017-01-22T20:37:45","modified_gmt":"2017-01-22T15:07:45","slug":"t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961","title":{"rendered":"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty’S Family … vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
T. V. R. Subbu Chetty’S Family … vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 797, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 624<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nT.   V. R. SUBBU CHETTY'S FAMILY CHARITIES\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.   RAGHAVA MUDALIAR AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/01\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  797\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 624\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1971 SC1041\t (6)\n RF\t    1972 SC2069\t (7,22)\n RF\t    1976 SC 807\t (41,42)\n\n\nACT:\nHindu  Law--Alienation by widow--Reversioner's suit  to\t set\naside alienation--Ratification of alienation by reversioner.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nM,  a  Hindu, died leaving his mother,\twidow,\tsisters\t and\nsisters' son and daughters.  There were disputes between the\nmother\tand the widow which were settled at the instance  of\ncertain arbitrators.  Under this settlement a portion of one\nof the houses was given to a sister of M, another portion to\nR  son of another sister and his sister and a third  portion\nto  the daughter of the third sister.  Certain properties  ,\nwhich  had been agreed to be sold under the settlement\twere\nsold  to the appellant by the mother and the  widow.   After\nthe death of the mother and the widow R filed a suit as\t the\nnext reversioner of M for recovery of the properties sold on\nthe ground that the alienation was without necessity and was\nnot binding on him.  The appellant contended (i)  that R was\nprecluded  from disputing the settlement between the  mother\nand the widow as he had received a benefit under it and\t had\nratified  it by his conduct and (ii) that the  transfer\t was\nfor  legal necessity.\nHeld,  that  the transfer was not binding on R\tand  he\t was\nentitled to avoid it.  The settlement between the mother and\nthe widow was also not binding on R. If a person having full\nknowledge  of  his rights as a possible\t reversioner  enters\ninto  a transaction which settles his claim as well  as\t the\nclaim  of the opponents at the relevant time, he  cannot  be\npermitted  to  go back on that\tarrangement  when  reversion\nactually falls open.  But the mere fact that the reversioner\nhas  received some benefit under the transaction or has\t not\nchallenged  its validity when it took place cannot  bar\t his\nrights\tas a reversioner.  It will always be a\tquestion  of\nfact  as to whether the conduct of the reversioner on  which\nthe  plea  of ratification is based does in  law  amount  to\nratification  properly so called.  In the present  case\t the\nsettlement was not in the nature of a family arrangement; at\nthat  time R was a minor and was not a party to any  of\t the\nsaid  transactions.  There was no conduct of R\twhich  could\namount\t to  ratification  of  the  settlement\tor  of\t the\nalienation.  At the time when he accepted the gift he  could\nnot  know  about  his  rights  as  a  possible\treversioner.\nFurther, there was no legal necessity for the transfer.\nSahu  Madho  Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram<\/a> [1955]  2\t S.C.R.\t 22,\nDhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore,<\/a> [1952] S.C.R. 478, Kanhai Lal\nv.  Brij Lal (1918) L.R. 45 I.A. 118.  Rangasami Gounden  v.\nNachiappa  Gounden  (1918)  L.R. 46  I.A.  72  and  Ramgouda\nAnnagouda v. Bhausakeb (1927) L.R. 54 I.A. 396, referred to\n625\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 204\/1956.
\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated February 23, 1951,
\nof the Madras High Court in O. S. Appeal No. 13\/1948.
\nR.   Keshva  Aiyangar  and  M.\tS.  K.\tAiyangar,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
A.   V.\t Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal,  for\t .respondent
\nNo. 1.\n<\/p>\n
B. K. B. Naidu, for respondent No. 6.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  January 27.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal arises out of a suit filed by
\nthe  respondent\t M. Raghava Mudaliar who claims\t to  be\t the
\nreversioner  of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar.  In his suit\t the
\nrespondent alleges that after the death of Madhava  Ramanuja
\nMudaliar  which took place on March 22, 1893,  his  property
\ncame  into  the possession of his widow\t Manickammal.\tSub-
\nsequently  the said Manickammal and Rengammal,\tthe  widowed
\nmother\tof the deceased Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar  alienated
\nthe  properties without any legal necessity.   According  to
\nthe  respondent the said alienation was not binding  on\t him
\nand  so\t he was entitled to recover possession of  the\tsaid
\nproperty  free\tof any encumbrance or  charge.\t Manickammal
\ndied  on October 18, 1941, whereas Rengammal died  in  June,
\n1921.  On the death of the widow Manickammal reversion\tfell
\nopen and that has given a cause of action to the  respondent
\nfor his present suit.\n<\/p>\n
Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar died issueless and was survived by
\nhis widow, his widowed mother, his sister Andalammal and the
\nrespondent  and his sister Apurupammal who are the  children
\nof  Ammakannu  Ammal the second sister of  Madhava  Ramanuja
\nMudaliar, and Ethirajammal the daughter of the third  sister
\nof  Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar.\tTo his suit  the  respondent
\nimpleaded  the appellant Andalammal,  Krishnasami  Mudaliar,
\nson  of\t the said Apurupammal (defendant 1) and\t Susila\t Bai
\nAmmal daughter of
\n626<\/span>
\nEthirajammal  as defendants 2 to 4. The Udayavar  Temple  by
\nthe  sole  trustee Bysani Krishnaiah Chetty  was  joined  as
\ndefendant 5.\n<\/p>\n
After  her husband’s death Manickammal obtained\t letters  of
\nadministration to his estate from the High Court at  Madras.
\nIt appears that the relations of the widow with her  mother-
\nin-law\twere  embittered, and that led to  disputes  between
\nthem.\tThese  disputes were settled by the  two  widows  in
\npursuance of the advice of certain arbitrators who  mediated
\nbetween\t them.\tThe settlement thus reached was recorded  in
\nwriting on May 27, 1893 (Ex.  D-2).  It would be relevent to
\nrefer  to  the main terms of the settlement at\tthis  stage.
\nThis  settlement  set out the properties covered  by  it  as
\nSerial\tNos. 1 to 5. Item No. 1 which was a house  in  three
\nblocks\twas  divided between the respondent and\t his  sister
\nApurupammal who were to take one share; Ethirajammal who was
\nto  take another share; and Andalammal who was to  take\t the
\nthird  share.\tHouse No. 62, which, was Serial No.  2,\t and
\nhouses and shops Nos. 126 and 127 which were shown as Serial
\nNo. 3 were agreed to be sold, and it was settled that out of
\nthe sale proceeds the debts of the deceased Madhava Ramanuja
\nMudaliar  and  his  father should  be  discharged;  expenses
\nincurred  in obtaining the letters of administration  should
\nthen  be deducted along with the expenses of sale,  and\t the
\nbalance\t should\t be divided equally between the\t two  widows
\nsubject to a payment of Rs. 1,000\/- to the mother-in-law  in
\nlieu  of  her jewels.  The two cawnies of lands\t which\twere
\nSerial\tNo. 4 were agreed to be given to the maternal  uncle
\nof  the\t deceases  Madhava Ramanuja  Mudaliar,\twhereas\t the
\nmoveables which were shown as Serial No. 5 had to be divided
\nhalf  and half between the two widows.\tThis  document\tcon-
\ntained a clause which provided that ” in case any one of  us
\ncontravenes the terms the other party shall not only  cancel
\nthis  agreement\t but  his title to  the\t estate\t of  Madhava
\nRamanuja Mudaliar prior to the agreement shall in no way  be
\naffected  subject to. which this agreement has been  entered
\ninto.\t”  The document thus executed was attested  by\tfour
\nattesting witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
627<\/span><\/p>\n
It  appears  that soon after this agreement  was  finalised,
\nKrishnasamy Mudaliar, defendant 3, objected to its  validity
\nand  disputed  the  right of the widows\t to  deal  with\t the
\nproperty  in the manner specified in it.  He  was,  however,
\npersuaded  to abandon his objections.’ and a sale  deed\t was
\nexecuted by him conveying his reversionary rights to the two
\nwidows\tfor consideration’ on September 10, 1894.   By\tthis
\ndocument  defendant  3 purported to recognise and  grant  an
\nabsolute title to the two widows in regard to the estate  of
\nthe  deceased (Ex.  D-3).  Subsequent to this  document\t the
\ntwo  widows began to enjoy the properties as agreed  between
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
On  February  4,  1895 the two widows sold  item  No.  1  in
\nSchedule 11 attached to the plaint, i.e., Nos. 126 and\t127,
\nAnna Pillai Street and Audiappa Naick Street respectively to
\nThatha\tVenkata Raghava Subbu Chetty.  The appellant is\t the
\nsuccessor  in title of the said division in respect  of\t the
\nsaid  item No. 1 in Schedule II.  In the present  appeal  we
\nare concerned only with this item.\n<\/p>\n
On  May\t 27,  1895,  a\tcomposite  deed\t of  partition\t and
\nadministration\tof property of the deceased was executed  by
\nand between the two widows (Ex.\t D-5).\tBy this document the
\nthree blocks in the house shown as Serial No. 1 in Ex.\t D-2
\nwere delivered into the possession of the respective donees.
\nThe maternal uncle of the deceased was given two cawnies  of
\nlands  as therein stipulated and the debts of  the  deceased
\nwere  discharged  and expenses incurred in  respect  of\t the
\nletters\t of  administration  were met.\tIt  is\tunder  these
\ncircumstances that the respondent filed his present Suit No.
\n56  of 1946 on the Original Side of the Madras High  Court;.
\nand  he claimed that the alienations made by the two  widows
\nwere  not  binding  on\thim  and  he  was  entitled  to\t the
\npossession  of\tthe property left by  the  deceased  Madhava
\nRamanuja.   The schedule attached to the plaint referred  to
\nfour  items of property, and as we have already pointed\t out
\nit  is\tonly with item No. 1 out of these  four\t items\twith
\nwhich we are concerned in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
628<\/span><\/p>\n
In  regard  to the said item the appellant  urged  that\t the
\nagreement  between  the\t two  widows  (Ex.   D-2)  and\t the
\nsubsequent  composite deed executed in pursuance of it\t(Ex.
\nD-5) were in the nature of a family arrangement, and as such
\nthey were binding on the respondent.  In was also alleged by
\nthe appellant that the respondent had received benefit under
\nthe  said  arrangement and by his conduct had  ratified\t it.
\nThe appellant further pleaded that the transfer in favour of
\nhis   predecessor   was\t supported   by\t  legal\t  necessity.
\nIncidentally  a\t plea of surrender was also  raised  by\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Justice Kunhiraman, who tried the suit, held that  there
\nwas  a\tfamily arrangement which bound the  respondent.\t  He
\nalso observed that the respondent had received benefit under
\nthe  said  arrangement\tand  was  therefore  precluded\tfrom
\nchallenging  its validity.  The learned\t Judge\tincidentally
\nmade some observations which showed that he was inclined  to
\nuphold\tthe plea of surrender raised by the  appellant.\t  In
\nthe result the respondent’s suit was dismissed.
\nThe respondent then took the matter in appeal and succeeded.
\nThe  appeal court held that the impugned arrangement  cannot
\nbe said to be a bona fide family settlement which would bind
\nthe  respondent.   Before the appeal court it  was  conceded
\nthat the plea of surrender raised by the appellant could not
\nbe  sustained, and that the contention that  the  respondent
\nwas  bound  by\tthe family arrangement\tcould  not  also  be
\nsustained.   It\t was,  however,\t urged\ton  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  that the respondent’s conduct precluded him\tfrom
\ndisputing the validity of the arrangement but this  argument
\nwas rejected by the appeal court; likewise, the\t contentions
\nthat  the transfer in favour of the appellant’s\t predecessor
\nwas  justified by legal necessity also failed.\tAs a  result
\nof  these findings the respondent’s appeal was allowed,\t the
\ndecree\tpassed\tby the trial court was set  aside,  and\t the
\nclaim  for  possession made by the respondent  was  decreed.
\nThe respondent’s suit was accordingly directed to go  before
\nthe Official Referee for ascertainment of mesne profits
\n629<\/span>
\nclaimed\t by  him.   It\tis  against  this  decree  that\t the
\nappellant has come to this Court in appeal.
\nThe principal point which has been urged before us by Mt% R.
\nKeshav\tAiyangar  on  behalf of the  appellant\tis  that  in
\nsubstance   the\t  respondent  has  ratified   the   impugned
\ntransaction,  has  received  benefit under it,\tand  by\t his
\nconduct\t has  affirmed it, and so it is not open to  him  to
\nchallenge its validity and binding character.  In support of
\nthis  argument\the  has canvassed  for\tour  acceptance\t the
\nproposition  that  if a person with full  knowledge  of\t his
\nrights\tassents\t to  a transaction which  may  otherwise  be
\nvoidable  at his instance and takes benefit under it, he  is
\nsubsequently  precluded\t from disputing\t its  validity.\t  In
\nsupport of this argument he has relied on a decision of this
\nCourt  in Sahu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram<\/a> (1).  In\tthat
\ncase  this  Court has held that it is settled  law  that  an
\nalienation  by\ta  widow in exercise of her  powers  is\t not
\naltogether  void but only voidable by the  reversioners\t who
\nmay either singly or as a body be precluded from  exercising
\ntheir right to avoid it either by express ratification or by
\nacts  which treat it as valid or binding.  This\t Court\talso
\nobserved  that\tit  is a principle  of\tgeneral\t application
\nunderlying  many branches of the law that a person who\twith
\nfull knowledge of his rights has once elected to assent to a
\ntransaction  voidable at his instance and has  thus  elected
\nnot  to\t exercise his right to avoid it, cannot go  back  on
\nthat  election and avoid it at a later stage ;\thaving\tmade
\nhis election he is bound by it.\t The argument is that though
\nthe   respondent  may  not  be\ta  party  to  the   impugned
\ntransaction,  if by his conduct it can be said that  he\t has
\nelected\t to uphold it and has received benefit under  it  he
\ncannot be allowed to go back upon the election.\t There is of
\ncourse no doubt about the correctness of the principle\tthus
\nenunciated,  but the difficulty in the way of the  appellant
\narises\twhen  the  applicability of the\t said  principle  is
\ntested\tin  the light of the relevant material\tfindings  in
\nthat  case.   That  is why it is  necessary  to\t refer\tvery
\nbriefly\t to  the findings of fact on which the\tdecision  in
\nSahu
\n(1)  [1955] 2 S.C..R. 22,
\n630<\/span>
\nMadho  Das’s  case  (1)\t rests.\t In  that  case\t this  Court
\nconsidered  the question as to whether the plaintiff  Mukand
\nRam  had  assented to the impugned family  arrangement,\t and
\nobserved  that as he was not a party to the arrangement\t his
\nassent\tto the arrangement itself and not to something\telse
\nmust  be clearly established, and also his knowledge of\t the
\nfacts.\t Then, having thus posed the question  the  material
\nevidence was examined, and it. was-held that the  cumulative
\neffect of the said evidence led to the reasonable  inference
\nthat  the  plaintiff’s assent was to  the  very\t arrangement
\nitself,\t and  his  conduct as well as  the  conduct  of\t his
\nbrother\t  Kanhaiya  Lal\t was  consistent  only\t with\tthat
\nhypothesis; in other words, the examination of the  material
\nevidence justified the inference that Mukand Ram had in fact
\nelected\t to  assent  to the  transaction  and  had  received
\nbenefit\t under\tit,  and  so the  doctrine  of\telection  or
\nratification  precluded him from disputing the\tvalidity  of
\nthe  said  transaction.\t It is,\t however,  significant\tthat
\ndealing\t with  the  case of the minor  sons,  who  were\t not
\nparties\t either personally or through their  guardians,\t and
\nwho  did  not  claim  title  either  through  Pato  or\t her
\ndaughters, this Court expressly observed that so far as they
\nwere concerned what they received were gifts pure and simple
\nand  the  only assent that could be inferred from  the\tmere
\nacceptance of the gifts and nothing more would be assent  to
\nthat  particular gift and not assent to the gifts  similarly
\nmade to others.\t This observation brings out in bold  relief
\nby contrast the relevant findings in the light of which\t the
\nplaintiff was held precluded from disputing the validity  of
\nthe impugned transaction.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant has also relied on another decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore<\/a> (2).  In that case it
\nwas  held  that even if the impugned award was\tinvalid\t the
\nplaintiff  who disputed its validity was barred from  making
\nthat claim by reason of estoppel.  Brijlal against whom\t the
\nplea  of  estoppel was effectively raised appeared  to\thave
\nmade  a\t claim to the estate in question in  1884  when\t the
\nimpugned
\n(1) [1955] a S.C.R. 22.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1952] S.C.R. 478.\n<\/p>\n
631<\/span><\/p>\n
transaction  took  place,, and it was as a  result  of\tthis
\nclaim\tthat  settlement  was  reached\tand   the   impugned
\ntransaction  effected.\t This Court held that even  if\t the
\naward  which  was  challenged was  invalid  Brijlal  by\t his
\nconduct\t had precluded himself from raising  the  contention
\nagainst\t the  validity of the award.  In ,  coming  to\tthis
\nconclusion this Court observed that, the case before it\t was
\nvery similar to the one which the Privy Council had  decided
\nin  Kanhai Lal v. Brij Lal (1).\t When we turn to  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t decision  itself we find that Kanhai Lal,  who\t was
\nheld  by the Privy Council to be precluded from\t challenging
\nthe arrangement to which he was a party, had set up a  title
\nin himself on the strength of an alleged adoption, and when,
\nhaving\tregard to the said title, a settlement\twas  reached
\nand  a compromise arrangement was made, it was held  by\t the
\nPrivy Council that the doctrine of estoppel came into  play.
\nKanhai Lal, who subsequently became a reversioner  according
\nto the Privy Council, was bound by the previous\t arrangement
\nand  ”\tcannot\tnow  claim  as\ta  reversioner.”  These\t two
\ndecisions  also emphasise, the fact that if a person  having
\nfull  knowledge\t of  his rights as  a  possible\t reversioner
\nenters\tinto a transaction which settlers his claim as\twell
\nas  the\t claim\tof his opponents at the\t relevant  time,  he
\ncannot\tbe  permitted to go back on  that  arrangement\twhen
\nreversion actually falls open. There are two other decisions
\nof  the\t Privy Council to which reference may be  made.\t  In
\nRangaswami  Gounden  v.\t Nachiappa  Gounden  (2)  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t had to deal mainly with the question of  surrender,
\nits theory and its essential features.\tIncidentally it\t had
\nalso to deal with the case of reversioner who had taken from
\nan alienee from a Hindu widow a mortgage of a property which
\nincluded a part of the property alienated, and the  question
\nraised\t was  whether  by  reason  of  the  fact  that\t the
\nreversioner  had  a  mortgage of the said  property  he\t was
\nprecluded   from  challenging  the  validity  of  the\tsaid
\nalienation;  and the Privy Council held that he was  not  so
\nprecluded.  In dealing with this aspect of the question\t the
\nPrivy Council
\n(1) (1919) L.R. 45 I.A. 118.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1918) L.R. 40 I.A. 72.\n<\/p>\n
632<\/span><\/p>\n
observed  that it is well-settled that though he who may  be
\ntermed\ta  presumptive\treversionary heir  has\ta  title  to
\nchallenge an alienation at its inception, he need not do so,
\nbut  is\t entitled to wait till the death of  the  widow\t has
\naffirmed  his character, a character which up to  that\tdate
\nmight be defeated by birth or by adoption The Privy  Council
\nthen  examined\tthe nature of the mortgage,  the  properties
\nincluded  in  it,  and\tobserved  that\tthe  said   mortgage
\nconsisted  of  2\/14ths of the mitta which had  come  to\t the
\nmortgagors  in\tright  of  their  own  succession,  and\t the
\nremaining  share had come to them through the impugned\tdeed
\nof  gift.   Then  it was observed that at the  time  of\t the
\nmortgage the mortgagee did not know whether he would ever be
\nsuch  a\t reversioner in fact as would give him\ta  practical
\ninterest  to  quarrel with the deed of gift; and  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t asked\t“why  should  he  not  take  all  that\t the
\nmortgagers could give or propose to give.  ” ” To hold\tthat
\nby  doing  so  “, observed the Privy Council,  ”  he  barred
\nhimself\t from asserting his own title to a part of what\t was
\nmortgaged  seems  to their Lordships a\tquite  unwarrantable
\nproposition.”  This  decision shows that  the  principle  of
\nelection  or estoppel or ratification must be  applied\twith
\ndue  circumspection and the mere fact that  the\t reversioner
\nhas  received some benefit under the transaction or has\t not
\nchallenged  the\t validity of the transaction  when  it\ttook
\nplace cannot bar his rights as a reversioner when  reversion
\nin his favour falls open.\n<\/p>\n
The  last  case\t on which reliance has been  placed  by\t the
\nappellant  is the decision of the Privy Council in  Ramgouda
\nAnnagouda  v. Bhausaheb (1).  In this case the widow of\t the
\nlast  male  holder  had alienated nearly the  whole  of\t the
\nproperty  of  her  husband  by\tthree  deeds  executed\t and
\nregistered on the same day.  One of the deeds was in  favour
\nof  a presumptive reversioner.\tThe Privy Council held\tthat
\nthe   three  deeds  had\t to  be\t regarded  as  forming\t one
\ntransaction  entered into by all the persons  interested  in
\nthe properties, and that after the reversion fell open,\t the
\nreversioners who were parties to the said transactions
\n(1)  (1927) L.R. 54 I.A. 396.\n<\/p>\n
633<\/span><\/p>\n
were precluded from disputing the two alienations by  reason
\nof their conduct.  According to the Privy Council the  three
\ndeeds in question were inseparably connected together and in
\nthat view Annagouda, the reversioner, who challenged two  of
\nthe  three transactions, not only consented to the  sale  to
\nShivgouda  and\tthe  gift  to  Basappa-which  were  the\t two
\ntransactions impeached-but these dispositions formed part of
\nthe same transaction by which he himself acquired a part  of
\nthe estate.  Thus it may be taken to be well-settled that if
\na presumptive reversioner is a party to an arrangement which
\nmay  properly  be  called a  family  arrangement  and  takes
\nbenefit\t under it, he would be precluded from disputing\t the
\nvalidity  of the said arrangement when reversion falls\topen
\nand  he\t becomes the actual reversioner.   The\tdoctrine  of
\nratification  may  also\t be invoked  against  a\t presumptive
\nreversioner  who,  though not a party  to  the\ttransaction,
\nsubsequently  ratifies it with full knowledge of his  rights
\nby  assenting  to it and taking benefit under  it.   It\t is,
\nhowever,  clear\t that  mere  receipt  of  benefit  under  an
\narrangement by which a Hindu widow alienates the property of
\nher  deceased  husband\twould  not  preclude  a\t presumptive
\nreversioner   from  disputing  the  validity  of  the\tsaid
\nalienation when he becomes the actual reversioner.  It\tmust
\nalways\tbe a question of fact as to whether the\t conduct  of
\nthe  said reversioner on which the plea of  ratification  is
\nbased does in law amount to ratification properly so-called.
\nIt  is\tin the light of these principles that  we  must\t now
\nconsider the relevant facts in the present appeal.
\nThere can be no doubt that the transaction which took  place
\non May 27, 1893, as a result of the dispute between the\t two
\nwidows and with the intervention of the well-wishers of\t the
\nfamily is not a family arrangement as understood under Hindu
\nLaw.   This position was conceded before the High Court\t and
\nis  not disputed before us (Ex.\t D-2).\tSimilarly, the\tsale
\ndeed which was executed by defendant 3 in favour of the\t two
\nwidows\tis of no assistance because it was obviously a\tsale
\nby defendant 3 of his reversionary rights which were then no
\nbetter than spes suwessionis and as
\n634<\/span>
\nsuch this transaction (Ex.  D-3) cannot help to validate the
\nearlier arrangement between the two widows.  The   composite
\ndocument (Ex.  D-5) of May 27, 1895, is in substance no more
\nthan  an alienation no doubt   executed for  the  purpose of
\ncarrying  out  the  original  arrangement  between  the\t two
\nwidows.\t Thus in dealing with the question as to whether the
\nrespondent is precluded from challenging the validity of the
\nimpugned  transaction it is necessary to bear in  mind\tthat
\nthe original transaction is not a transaction in the  nature
\nof  a family arrangement.  Besides, he was then a minor\t and
\nadmittedly   he\t was  not  a  party  to\t any  of  the\tsaid
\ntransactions.\n<\/p>\n
It  is,\t however,  urged  that\tthe  respondent\t obtained  a
\ncertificate  or a patta from the Collector in regard to\t the
\nproperty conveyed to him under Ex.  D-5, and the argument is
\nthat he has deliberately withheld the said patta because  he
\napprehended that if produced the patta would go against him.
\nThe  explanation given by the respondent for  not  producing
\nthe  patta  is attacked as unsatisfactory, and it  is  urged
\nthat  the  said\t explanation  cannot  possibly\tconceal\t his
\nintention to keep back the document from the Court.  In\t his
\ncross-examination the respondent stated that the Collector’s
\ncertificate  which had been given to him by his\t grandmother
\nhad  been filed by him in Suit No. 495 of 1916 in  the\tCity
\nCivil Court, and he added that his advocate in the said suit
\nhad  not returned the document to him.\tWe may\tassume\tthat
\nthe  respondent has not produced the document though it\t was
\nin  his possession; but we have on the record two  documents
\nwhich  were  issued to the other donees, and  all  that\t the
\nappellant  is entitled to assume is that a similar  document
\nhad  been  issued  in  favour of  the  respondent.   In\t our
\nopinion,  the two documents on the record do not assist\t the
\nappellant’s  argument that any representation had been\tmade
\nby  the\t respondent to the Collector before  he\t obtained  a
\npatta  in his favour.  In fact the issue of the patta  is  a
\nroutine\t matter\t which\twould  necessarily  follow  on\t the
\nexecution  of the registered sale deed (Ex.  D-5).   On\t the
\nregistration  of the said document persons who\tgot  certain
\nimmoveable properties
\n635<\/span>
\nunder  it  were given the certificates by the  Collector  in
\nordinary course, and so no argument can be built up  against
\nthe  respondent that the acceptance of the patta amounts  to
\nthe ratification of the original transaction of sale.
\nIt is then urged that in Civil Suit No. 495 of 1916 filed in
\nthe  City Civil Court at Madras by Apurupammal against\ttile
\nrespondent  and\t another, the respondent filed\tthe  written
\nstatement in which he admitted the validity of the  impugned
\ntransaction.  It appears that the plaintiff in that suit had
\nbased  her  claim on the said impugned transaction,  and  in
\nrespect\t of  the said claim the respondent  had\t alleged  in
\nparagraph  2 of his written statement that he admitted\tthat
\nin  consequence of certain disputes which arose between\t the
\nmother\tand  the widow of the deceased\tGovinda\t Mudaliar  a
\ncompromise  settlement was arrived at in pursuance of  which
\nsome transfers were effected.  This, it is said, amounts  to
\nan  admission of the validity of the said  transaction\t(Ex.
\nD- 15).\t This argument, however, fails to take notice of the
\nfact that while referring to the said compromise  settlement
\nthe respondent had expressly added that the said  compromise
\nsettlement was obviously to take effect only during the life
\ntenancy\t of the widow of the deceased Govinda Mudaliar\t(Ex.
\nP-3).\tIn other words, taking the statement as a whole,  as
\nwe  must,  the respondent looked upon  the  said  compromise
\nsettlement  as\tan  alienation\tmade by\t the  widow  and  as
\nintended to take effect during her lifetime and no more.  In
\nother  words,  far from supporting a  plea  of\tratification
\nagainst\t the respondent this statement strengthens his\tcase
\nthat  he took the benefit with the knowledge and  under\t the
\nbelief\tthat  the arrangement under which the  said  benefit
\nflowed was intended to be operative during the ,Lifetime  of
\nthe widow, and as such he had no occasion to challenge\tits,
\nvalidity whilst the widow was alive.\n<\/p>\n
A  somewhat similar argument is based on the conduct of\t the
\nrespondent in relation to Civil Suit No. 1117 of 1921  filed
\nby  Masilamani\tMudaly, the sister’s son, and  the  deceased
\nGovinda\t Mudaliar in the Madras High Court (Ex.\t  P.16).  To
\nthis suit the
\n636<\/span>
\nrespondent  was impleaded as defendant 7. In this  suit\t the
\nsaid   plaintiff   had\tchallenged  the\t validity   of\t the
\narrangement,  and asked for appropriate injunctions  against
\ndefendant 6 to the suit, Thuggi Kondiah\t Chetty, Trustee  of
\nUdayavar  Koil, and other defendants from dealing  with\t the
\nproperty to the prejudice of  the reversionary right of\t the
\nplaintiff.   It is unnecessary to refer to the pleadings  in
\nthe  said suit or to specify in detail the reliefs  claimed.
\nThe  only  point which is relevant to consider is  that\t the
\nreversioner had challenged the arrangement in question.\t The
\nrespondent by his written statement had purported to support
\nthe  plea made by the plaintiff, and had added that  he\t was
\nnot  personally\t aware\tof  any\t attempt  on  the  part\t  of
\ndefendants  2 to 4 to alienate the properties in respect  of
\ntheir possession and enjoyment.\t This suit, however, did not
\nproceed\t to  a\ttrial  as  it  was  dismissed  for  want  of
\nprosecution,  and the argument is that since the  respondent
\nhad  supported\tthe  plaintiff\tin  the\t said  suit  it\t was
\nnecessary  that he should have got himself transposed  as  a
\nplaintiff,  when  he found that the original  plaintiff\t was
\nallowing  the suit to be dismissed for non-prosecution.\t  In
\nour  opinion,  this  argument  is  far-fetched\tand   cannot
\npossibly  sustain  the\tplea  of  ratification\tagainst\t the
\nrespondent.   If  the  respondent  took\t possession  of\t the
\nproperty   under   the\t arrangement   with   the   distinct
\nunderstanding  that the arrangement was to last only  during
\nthe  lifetime of the widow, we see no justification for\t the
\nassumption that he should have carried on Civil Suit No.  11
\n17  of\t1921  or should in fact\t have  challenged  the\tsaid
\narrangement at all.\n<\/p>\n
The   last  argument  urged  in\t support  of  the  plea\t  of
\nratification  is  based on the oral evidence  given  by\t the
\nrespondent  in the present case.  The respondent  was  asked
\nabout  the quarrels between the mother and the widow of\t the
\ndeceased  Mudaliar,  and  he  said  that  they\twere  living
\ntogether and that there were quarrels between them.  Then he
\nwas  asked  as\tto whether he got  the\tproperty  under\t the
\nimpugned arrangement, and he said that his grandmother\tgave
\nhim the house with the Collector’s certificate and told\t him
\nthat she
\n637<\/span>
\nwas  going  to die soon and so he may take the\thouse.\t The
\nrespondent  also  admitted  that since the  house  was\tthus
\ndelivered  to him and to his sister they were in  possession
\nof  it and in enjoyment of its income.\tThe respondent\tthen
\nstated\tthat he was not aware of the document of 1895  until
\n1916,  and that he came to know about the  division  between
\nthe  two  widows(  only\t in 1910.  It  is  urged  that\tthis
\nstatement should not be believed, and that the reluctance of
\nthe  respondent\t to disclose the truth should  lead  to\t the
\ninference  that he knew all about the  impugned\t transaction
\nand  its  effect, and that when he took\t possession  of\t the
\nproperty allotted to him under the said transaction he\tknew
\nfully  well  about his rights and he accepted  the  benefits
\nwith  the object of reifying the whole transaction.  In\t our
\nopinion there is no ,substance in this argument.
\nIn this connection it is relevant to remember that until Act
\nII  of 1929 was passed a sister’s son, like the\t respondent,
\nwould  have  had  very few chances  of\tbecoming  an  actual
\nreversioner; he would have come in the list of bandhus;\t and
\nso it would be difficult to assume that at the time when the
\nrespondent accepted the gift of the house he knew about\t his
\nrights\tas  a possible reversioner.   Besides,\tthe  benefit
\nwhich he obtained under the impugned transaction could\talso
\nin  substance  have  been claimed by him  under\t an  earlier
\narrangement  entered  into  between  Govinda  Mudaliar\t and
\nMadhava\t Ramanuja Mudaliar on February 7, 1887\t(Ex.   D-1).
\nHaving\tregard\tto  the arrangement disclosed  by  the\tsaid
\ndocument  the benefit given to the respondent and the  other
\nchildren of the sisters of the deceased Mudaliar may as well
\nhave  been based on the said arrangement, and all  that\t the
\ntransactions  of 1893 and 1895 did was to give effect to  it
\n(Exs.\tD-2 and D-5).  Besides, as we have  already  pointed
\nout, in 1893 the respondent was a minor, and when subsequent
\nto  1895  he  took possession of the property  it  does\t not
\nappear\ton evidence that he knew that the intention  of\t the
\nwidows\twas to treat the property as absolute owners and  to
\nconvey\t absolute  titles  to  the  respective\tdonees\t and
\ntransferee under
\n638<\/span>
\nthe  said transaction.\tHe also could not have\tknown  about
\nhis  rights  as a possible reversioner.\t Therefore,  in\t our
\nopinion,  the  High  Court was right  in  holding  that\t the
\nappellant had failed to establish his plea of  ,ratification
\nagainst the respondent.\t Indeed, to hold otherwise would  be
\nin  the\t words of the Privy Council  a\tquite  unwarrantable
\nproposition ” (1) (p. 87).\n<\/p>\n
That   leaves  the  question  of  legal\t necessity   to\t  be
\nconsidered.   The  High\t Court has held\t that  the  impugned
\ntransfer  cannot  be said to have been\tjustified  by  legal
\nnecessity;  and,  in our opinion, the finding  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  on  this point is obviously right.  In  dealing\twith
\nthis question it may be relevant to recall that the widow of
\nthe deceased Mudaliar had obtained letters of administration
\nto  the\t estate of the deceased on April 26, 1893,  and,  as
\nusual,\tin issuing the letters limitation had  been  imposed
\nupon the widow that she could not deal with or transfer\t the
\nproperty in question without the requisite sanction.   There
\nis some force in the argument urged before us by Mr.  Sastri
\non behalf of the respondent that it was with a view to avoid
\nthe  necessity\tto obtain the requisite\t sanction  that\t the
\nwidow of the deceased Mudaliar was persuaded by her  mother-
\nin-law\tto  enter into the impugned  transaction  under\t the
\nguise of a family arrangement.\tThe document itself (Ex.  D-\n<\/p>\n
5) does not purport to be justified by legal necessity.\t  In
\nterms it purports to give effect to the original arrangement
\nof 1893 (Ex.  D-2); and if the said arrangement is not valid
\nas  a family arrangement the subsequent transfer would\talso
\nbe invalid.  Besides, out of a total consideration of  about
\nRs.  10,000\/-  the  amount  of Rs. 776\/-  can  be  taken  to
\nrepresent  the debts due by the deceased Mudaliar; the\trest
\nof   the  items\t of  consideration  cannot  be\ttreated\t  as
\nconstituting  a legal necessity at all.\t The amount  of\t Rs.
\n558\/-  was the expense incurred for executing the  document;
\nsimilarly  the\tamount of Rs. 409\/representing\tthe  funeral
\nexpense of the deceased Mudaliar, had apparently been  spent
\nby the widow who wanted to reimburse herself and that cannot
\nbe a legal necessity.  The other items of consideration do
\n(1)  (1918) L.R. 46 I.A. 72.\n<\/p>\n
639<\/span><\/p>\n
not  even purport to be for legal necessity.  Therefore,  in
\nour opinion, the conclusion is inescapable that the impugned
\ntransfer is not justified by legal necessity.
\nThe result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India T. V. R. Subbu Chetty’S Family … vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 797, 1961 SCR (3) 624 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: T. V. R. SUBBU CHETTY’S FAMILY CHARITIES Vs. RESPONDENT: M. RAGHAVA MUDALIAR AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/01\/1961 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nT. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family ... vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family ... vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-22T15:07:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty’S Family … vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-22T15:07:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961\"},\"wordCount\":5140,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961\",\"name\":\"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family ... vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-22T15:07:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty’S Family … vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family ... vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family ... vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-22T15:07:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty’S Family … vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961","datePublished":"1961-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-22T15:07:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961"},"wordCount":5140,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961","name":"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family ... vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-22T15:07:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-r-subbu-chettys-family-vs-m-raghava-mudaliar-and-others-on-27-january-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. V. R. Subbu Chetty’S Family … vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}