{"id":245952,"date":"1968-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968"},"modified":"2017-10-26T15:26:58","modified_gmt":"2017-10-26T09:56:58","slug":"puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968","title":{"rendered":"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1018, \t\t 1968 SCR (3) 119<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPUTTARANGAMMA & 2 ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM. S. RANGANNA & 3 ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/02\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR 1018\t\t  1968 SCR  (3) 119\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1979 SC1880\t (29)\n R\t    1983 SC 114\t (31)\n\n\nACT:\nHindu Law--Joint family--Unilateral decalration to separate-\nCommunicated   to  other  members   of\t family--Declaration\nwithdrawn--Effect.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe karta of a joint Hindu family fell ill.  He had no\tmale\nissue  arid  in\t order to safeguard  the  interests  of\t the\nappellant and fourth respondent, who were his daughters,  he\nissued registered notices to the other members of the  joint\nfamily declaring his unequivocal intention to separate\tfrom\nthem.\tLater,\the  decided  to\t withdraw  the\tnotices\t and\ninstructed the postal authorities not to forward them,\tbut,\nthe unequivocal declaration of his intention to separate was\nconveyed to the other members, of the joint family and\tthey\nhad full knowledge of such intention.  A few days thereafter\nhe  instituted\ta suit for partition and possession  of\t his\nshare  of  the\tProperty.   The plaint\twas  prepared  by  a\nresponsible  advocate,\twho explained the  contents  to\t the\nplaintiff  (the\t karta),  who  was  conscious  and  in\tfull\npossession of his mental faculties, had his thumb impression\naffixed on the plaint and Vakalatnama, signed them both\t and\nhad  them filed in court.  After the suit was filed  on\t the\nsame day, the plaintiff died.\nThe  trial court decreed (the suit, but the High  Court,  in\nappeal, reversed the decree.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:  The  mere  withdrawal of\t the  Plaintiffs  unilateral\ndeclaration  of\t intention to separate,\t which\talready\t had\nresulted   in  his  division  in  status  because   of\t the\ncommunication of the intention to the other members, did not\nnullify\t its  effect  so as to restore\tthe  family  to\t its\noriginal joint status, or amount to an agreement to reunite;\nand  (the appellant and the fourth respondent, as the  legal\nrepresentatives\t of  the  plaintiff, were  entitled  to\t the\ndecree. [126 G-H; 127 A-B; 129 D]\nRadhakrishna   v.  Satyanarayana,  (1948)  2   M.L.J.\t331,\napproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and decree dated December 5,\t1960
\nof the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 1956.
\nA. K. Sen and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants.
\nH. R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhri\t for
\nrespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRamaswami,  J. This, appeal is brought by  certificate\tfrom
\nthe judgment of the Mysore High Court dated December 5, 1960
\nin R. A. No. 81 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
120<\/span><\/p>\n
The  appellants and respondent No. 4 are the  daughters\t and
\nlegal\trepresentatives\t of  Savoy  Ranganna  who  was\t the
\nplaintiff  in O.S. 34 of 1950-51 instituted in the court  of
\nthe  District  Judge,  Mysore.\tThe suit was  filed  by\t the
\ndeceased  plaintiff  for  partition  of\t his  share  in\t the
\nproperties  mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and\t for
\ngranting  him separate possession of the  same.\t  Respondent
\nNo.,  1\t is the brother’s son of the Plaintiff.\t  The  rela-
\ntionship  of  the parties would appear\tfrom  the  following
\npedigree:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    Savoy Ranganna (Sr)\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————<\/p>\n
\nRangamma\t\t   Savoy Ranganna   Chikka Ranganna\n (Died 45\t  Alamma    (plaintiff)\t      (Died in 1947\nyears ago      (Deft. 2)\n     Dodda Rangamma\t\t      M. S. R. Ranganna, 3\n     (Deft. 2 (a)\t\t      (Deft. 1)\n\t\t\t\t      Lakkamma\n      Kenchanna (suppl,\t\t       (D. W. 10)\n\t\t Def).\n<\/pre>\n
Chikka Rangamma PuttaRangamma Rangathayamma Chinnathayyamma
\n(Deft. 3)    (1st L. R. of    (2nd L. R. of  (3rd I- R. Of
\n\t      plaintiff)      plaintiff)     plaintiff)
\nThe  case  of the plaintiff was that he and  the  defendants
\nlived  together\t as  members of a Joint\t Hindu\tfamily\ttill
\nJanuary\t 7, 1951, Plaintiff being the karta.  The  plaintiff
\nhad  no\t male  issue but had  only  four  daughters,  Chikka
\nRangamma, Putta Rangamma, Rangathayamma and  Chinnathayamma.
\nThe  first  2 daughters were widows.   The  fourth  daughter
\nChinnathayamma\t was  living  with  her\t  husband.    Except
\nChinnathayamma, the other daughters with their families\t had
\nbeen living with the joint family.  The plaintiff became ill
\nand  entered  ‘Sharda Nursing Home for treatment as  an\t in-
\npatient\t on  January  4, 1951.\tIn order  to  safeguard\t the
\ninterests  of  his daughters the plaintiff,  Savoy  Ranganna
\nissued\ta  notice  on  January 8,  1951\t to  the  defendants
\ndeclaring  his unequivocal intention to separate from  them.
\nAfter the notices were registered at the post office certain
\nwell-wishers  of the family intervened and wanted  to  bring
\nabout  a  settlement.\tOn  their  advice  and\trequest\t the
\nplaintiff  notified to the post office that he\tintended  to
\nwithdraw the registered notices.  But as no agreement  could
\nbe   subsequently   reached   between\t‘the   parties\t the
\nplaintiff.instituted  the  present suit on  January  13\t The
\n951’for\t partition  ‘of\t his  share  of\t the  joint   family
\nproperties.  The suit was contested mainly by
\n121<\/span>
\nrespondent  no. 1 who alleged that there was. no  separation
\nof status either because of the notice of January 8, 1951 or
\nbecause of the institution of the, suit on January 13, 1951.
\nThe  case (if respondent no.  1 was that Savoy Ranganna\t was
\n85 years of age and in a weak state of health and was not in
\na  position to understand the contents of the plaint  or  to
\naffix-his  signature or thumb impression thereon as well  as
\non the Vakalatnama. As regards the notice of January 8,1951,
\nrespondent  no.\t 1 asserted that there was no  communication
\nof any such notice to him and, in any case, the notices were
\nwithdrawn  by Savoy Ranganna unconditionally from  the\tpost
\noffice.\t  It  was  therefore contended\tthat  there  was  no
\ndisruption  of the joint family at the time of the death  of
\nSavoy  Ranganna\t and the appellants were not entitled  to  a
\ndecree\tfor  partition\tas legal  representatives  of  Savoy
\nRanganna.   Upon the examination of the evidence adduced  in
\nthe  case  the\ttrial court held  that\tSavoy  Ranganna\t had
\nproperly affixed his thumb impression on the plaint and\t the
\nVakalatnama  and the presentation of the plaint\t was  valid.
\nThe  trial court found that Savoy Ranganna was not  dead  by
\nthe time the plaint was presented.  On the question  whether
\nSavoy  Ranganna was separate in status the trial court\theld
\nthat  the  notices dated January 8, 1951 were  a  clear\t and
\nunequivocal  declaration of the intention of Savoy  Ranganna
\nto  become  divided  in\t status\t and  there  was  sufficient
\ncommunication  of  that intention to respondent no.   1\t and
\nother  members of the family.  The trial court was  also  of
\nthe  opinion  that at the time of the issue of\tthe  notices
\ndated  January 8, 1951 and at the time of execution  of\t the
\nplaint\tand  the Vakalatnama dated January  13,\t 1951  Savoy
\nRanganna  was in a sound state of mind and conscious of\t the
\nconsequences of the action he ‘Was taking.  The trial  court
\naccordingly  granted a decree in favour of  the\t appellants.
\nRespondent  no took the matter in appeal to the Mysore\tHigh
\nCourt which by its judgment dated December 5, 1960  reversed
\nthe  decree  of\t the trial court  and  allowed\tthe  appeal.
\nHegde, J. one of the members of the Bench held that the suit
\ncould not be said to have been instituted by Savoy  Ranganna
\nas  it\twas  not proved that  Savoy  Ranganna  executed\t the
\nplaint.\t As regards the validity of the notice Ex.A, and  as
\nto  whether  it caused any disruption in the,  joint  family
\nstatus, Hegde, J. did not think it necessary to express\t any
\nopinion.  The other member of the Bench, Mir. lqbal  Husain,
\nJ.,  held that the joint family of which the deceased  Savoy
\nRanganna was a member had not been disrupted by the issue of
\nthe  notice  dated January 8, 1951.  The view taken  by\t Mir
\nlqbal Husain,-J. was that there was no proof that the notice
\nwas communicated either to respondent no. 1 or other members
\nof  the\t family\t and,  in any event,  the  notice  had\tbeen
\nwithdrawn by Savoy Ranganna and so there was no severance of
\njoint status from the date of the notice.\n<\/p>\n
L4Sup.C.1\/68-9
\n122<\/span>
\nThe  first  question  to be considered\tin  this  appeal  is
\nwhether Savoy Ranganna died as a divided member of the joint
\nfamily as alleged in the plaint.  It is admitted that  Savoy
\nRanganna was very old, about 85 years of age and was  ailing
\nof  chronic  diarrhoea.\t He was living in the  family  house
\ntill  January  4,  1951 when he was removed  to\t the  Sharda
\nNursing\t Home  where he died on January 13, 1951  at  3\t p.m
\nAccording to the case of respondent no. 1 Savoy Ranganna had
\na  paralytic  stroke in 1950 and was  completely  bed-ridden
\nthereafter  and his eyesight was bad for 5 to 6 years  prior
\nto his death.  It was alleged in the written statement\tthat
\nSavoy  Ranganna was unconscious for some days prior  to\t his
\ndeath.\t The case of respondent no. 1 on this point is\tdis-
\nproved by the evidence of D.W. 6, Dr. Venkata Rao who was in
\ncharge\tof  the Sharda Nursing Home on the  material  dates.
\nThis  witness admitted that the complaint of Savoy  Ranganna
\nwas  that he was suffering from chronic diarrhoea  for\tover
\nfive  months.  He was anaemic but he was not suffering\tfrom
\nany attack of paralysis.  As regards the condition of  Savoy
\nRanganna  on  January 8, 1951, the evidence of P.W.  1,\t Dr.
\nSubbaramiah is important.  This witness is the owner of\t the
\nSharda Nursing Home and he has testified that the notice Ex.
\nA was read over to Savoy Ranganna and after getting it\tread
\nthe  latter  affixed his thumb mark  thereon.\tThe  witness
\nasked  Savoy Ranganna whether he was able to understand\t the
\ncontents  of  the  notice  and the  latter  replied  in\t the
\naffirmative.   The witness has certified on the notice,\t Ex.
\nA-1  that Savoy Ranganna was conscious when he\taffixed\t his
\nleft  thumb mark, to the notice in his presence.  No  reason
\nwas suggested on behalf of the respondents why the  evidence
\nof this witness should be disbelieved.\tThe trial court\t was
\nhighly impressed by the evidence of this witness and we\t see
\nno  reason  for taking a different view.  The  case  of\t the
\nappellants  is that respondent no.  1 had knowledge  of\t the
\nnotice, Ex.  A because he was present in the Nursing Home on
\nJanuary 8, 1951 and he tried to snatch away the notice\tfrom
\nthe  hands  of P.W. 1 but he was prevented from.  so  doing.
\nP.W. 5, Chinnanna stated in the course of the evidence\tthat
\nafter  P.W.  1 had signed the certificate in all  the  three
\ncopies,\t respondent no. 1 and one Halappa came to  the\tward
\nand tried to snatch away the notices.\tThe first respondent
\ntried to snatch away the copy Ex.  A-1 that was in the hands
\nof Dr. Subbaramiah and attempted   to\t tear\t it.\t Dr.
\nSubbaramiah  somehow prevented respondent no. 1 from  taking
\naway  Ex.  A and handed it over to P.W. 5. The\tevidence  of
\nP.W.   5  with\tregard\tto  the\t “snatching   incident”\t  is
\ncorroborated by Dr. Subbaramiah who stated that after  Savoy
\nRanganna  had  executed the notices and he  had\t signed\t the
\ncertificates,  one or two persons came and tried  to  snatch
\nthe  document.\t P.W.  1 is unable  to\tidentify  the  first
\nrespondent  as one of the persons who had taken part in\t the
\n“snatching  incident”.\t The circumstance that\tP.W.  1\t was
\nunable to identify respondent no. 1
\n123<\/span>
\nis not very material, because the incident took place  about
\nthree  years before he gave evidence in the court,  but\t his
\nevidence  with regard to the “snatching\t incident’  strongly
\ncorroborates the allegation of P.W. 5 that it was respondent
\nno.  1 who bad come into the Nursing Home and  attempted  to
\nsnatch the notice.  There is also another circumstance which
\nsupports  the case of the appellants that respondent no.   1
\nhad  knowledge\tof  the\t contents  of  Ex.   A\tand  of\t the
\nunequivocal intention of Savoy Ranganna to become divided in
\nstatus\tfrom  the joint family.\t According to  P.W.  5\tres-
\npondent\t no.   1  and  his wife\t and  mother  visited  Savoy
\nRanganna  in  the Nursing Home later on and pressed  him  to
\nwithdraw  the  notices\tpromising that the  matter  will  be
\namicably  settled.  Sowcar T. Thammanna also  intervened  on
\ntheir behalf.  Thereafter the deceased plaintiff  instructed
\nhis  grandson  P.W. 5 to withdraw the  notice.\t Accordingly
\nP.W.  5\t prepared two applications for\tthe  withdrawal\t and
\npresented  them to the postal authorities.  The notice,\t Ex.
\nA  meant for the first respondent and Ex.  E meant  for\t the
\noriginal second defendant were withheld by the postal autho-
\nrities.\t These notices were produced in court by the  postal
\nauthorities during the hearing of the case.  In our opinion,
\nthe evidence of P.W. 5 must be accepted as true, because  it
\nis  corroborated by the circumstance that the  two  notices,
\nExs.   A and E were intercepted in the post office  and\t did
\nnot   reach  their  destination.   This\t circumstance\talso
\nindicates that though there was no formal. communication  of
\nthe  notice,  Ex.   A  to  the\tfirst  respondent,  he\t had
\nsufficient knowledge of the contents of that notice and\t was
\nfully aware of the clear and unequivocal intention of  Savoy
\nRanganna to become separate from other members of the  joint
\nfamily.\n<\/p>\n
It is now a settled doctrine of Hindu Law that a member of a
\njoint Hindu family can being about his separation in  status
\nby a definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his
\nintention to separate himself from the family and enjoy\t his
\nshare  in severalty.  It is not necessary that there  should
\nbe  an\tagreement  between  all\t the  coparceners  for\t the
\ndisruption of the joint status.\t It is immaterial in such  a
\ncase whether the other coparceners give their assent to\t the
\nseparation  or\tnot.  The jural basis of this  doctrine\t has
\nbeen  expounded\t by  the early writers of  Hindu  Law.\t The
\nrelevant portion of the commentary of Vijnaneswara states as
\nfollows
\n[And thus though the mother is having her menstrual  courses
\n(has not lost the capacity to bear children) and the  father
\nhas  attachment and does not desire a partition, yet by\t the
\nwill (or desire) of the son a partition of the grandfather’s
\nwealth does take place]”\n<\/p>\n
124<\/span><\/p>\n
Saraswathi Vilasa, placitum 28 states
\n\t      [From this it is known that without any speech
\n\t      (or   explanation)   even\t by   means   of   a
\n\t      determination (or resolution) only,  partition
\n\t      is  effected,  just an appointed\tdaughter  is
\n\t      constituted   by\t mere\tintention    without
\n\t      speech.]”\n<\/p>\n
Viramitrodaya  of  Mitra Misra (Ch. 11. pl. 23)\t is  to\t the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t      [Here  too there is no distinction  between  a
\n\t      partition during the lifetime of the father or
\n\t      after his death and partition at the desire of
\n\t      the sons may take place or even by the  desire
\n\t      (or at the will) of a single (coparcener)].”
\n\t      Vyavahara\t Mayukha  of  Nilakantabhatta\talso
\n\t\t\t    states
\n\t      [Even  in\t the absence of\t any  common  (joint
\n\t      family) property, severance does indeed result
\n\t      by  the mere declaration ‘I am  separate\tfrom
\n\t      thee’ because severance is a. particular state
\n\t      (or condition) of the mind and the declaration
\n\t      is merely a manifestation of this mental state
\n\t      (or condition).]” (Ch.  IV, S. iii-I).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Emphasis   is laid on the “budhi visesha” (particular  state
\nor  condition  of  the\tmind)  as  the\tdecisive  factor  in
\nproducing  a  severance\t in status and\tthe  declaration  is
\nstated\tto be merely “abhivyanjika” or\tmanifestation  which
\nmight  vary according to circumstances.\t In Suraj Narain  v.
\nIqbal  Narain(1) the Judicial Committee made  the  following
\ncategorical statement of the legal position :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A definite and unambiguous indication by\t one
\n\t      member of intention to separate himself and to
\n\t      enjoy  his  share in severalty may  amount  to
\n\t      separation.   But\t to  have  that\t effect\t the
\n\t      intention\t must  be  unequivocal\tand  clearly
\n\t      expressed………. Suraj Narain alleged\tthat
\n\t      he  separated  a few months later;  there\t is,
\n\t      however, no
\n(1) I.L.R. 35 All. 80. (P.C.)
\n125<\/span>
\n.lm15
\nwriting\t in support of his allegation, nothing to show\tthat
\nat that time he gave expression to an unambiguous  intention
\non  his\t part to cut himself off from  the  joint  undivided
\nfamily.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  a  later case–Girja Bai v.\t Sadashiv  Dhundiraj(1)\t the
\nJudicial Committee examined the relevant texts of Hindu\t Law
\nand  referred to the well-marked distinction that exists  in
\nHindu  law  between  a severance in status  so\tfar  as\t the
\nseparating member is concerned and a de facto division\tinto
\nspecific shares of the property held until then jointly, and
\nlaid down the law as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “One  is a matter of individual decision,\t the
\n\t      desire on the part of any one member to  sever
\n\t      himself from the joint family and to enjoy his
\n\t      hitherto\t undefined  or\t unspecified   share
\n\t      separately  from\tthe  others  without   being
\n\t      subject  to the obligations which\t arise\tfrom
\n\t      the  joint  status; whilst the  other  is\t the
\n\t      natural  resultant  from\this  decision,\t the
\n\t      division.\t and separation of his\tshare  which
\n\t      may be arrived at either by private  agreement
\n\t      among  the parties, or on failure of that,  by
\n\t      the  intervention\t of  the  Court.   Once\t the
\n\t      decision has been unequivocally expressed\t and
\n\t      clearly intimated to his co-sharers, his right
\n\t      to  his  right  to have  his  share  allocated
\n\t      separately from has a title is  unimpeachable;
\n\t      neither the co-sharers can question it nor can
\n\t      the  Court examine his conscience to find\t out
\n\t      whether his reasons for separation were  well-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t    founded or sufficient; the Court has s
\nimply  to
\n\t      give  effect  to his right to have  his  share
\n\t      allocated separately from the others.\n<\/p>\n
In  Syed  Kasam\t v. Jorawar Singh  (2),\t Viscount  Cave,  in
\ndelivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, observed
\n\t      “It is settled law that in the case of a joint
\n\t      Hindu  family  subject  to  the  law  of\t the
\n\t      Mitakshara, a severance of estate is  effected
\n\t      by  an unequivocal declaration on the part  of
\n\t      one  of the joint holders of his intention  to
\n\t      hold  his\t share separately,  even  though  no
\n\t      actual   division\t takes\tplace  :   and\t the
\n\t      commencement of a suit for partition has\tbeen
\n\t      held  to be sufficient.to _effect a  severance
\n\t      in interest even before decree.”\n<\/p>\n
These authorities were quoted with approval by this Court in
\nAddagada  Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma<\/a>(3), and  it\t was
\nheld  that  a  member of a joint  Hindu\t family\t seeking  to
\nseparate  himself  from others will have to make  known\t his
\nintention to other members of his family from whom he  seeks
\nto separate.  The
\n(1) I.L.R. 43 Cal. 1031. (P.C.)
\n(2)  I.L.R. 50 Cal. 84. (P.C).\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1964] 2 S.C.R. 933.\n<\/p>\n
126<\/span><\/p>\n
correct\t legal\tposition therefore is that in a\t case  of  a
\njoint  Hindu family subject to Mitakshara law, severance  of
\nstatus is effected by an unequivocal declaration on the part
\nof  one\t of the jointholders of his intention  to  hold\t the
\nshare  separately.   It\t is, how.ever,\tnecessary  that\t the
\nmember of the joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself
\nmust make known his intention to other member of the  family
\nfrom   whom   he  seeks\t to  separate.\t  The\tprocess\t  of
\ncommunication  may,  however, vary in the  circumstances  of
\neach  particular  case.\t  It is not  necessary\tthat  there’
\nshould be a formal despatch to or receipt. by other  members
\nOf the family of the communication announcing the  intention
\nto  divide  on the part of one member of the  joint  family.
\nThe proof of such a despatch or receipt of the communication
\nis not essential, nor its absence fatal to the severance  of
\nthe   status.\tIt  is,\t of  course,  necessary\t  that\t the
\ndeclaration  to\t be  effective should reach  the  person  or
\npersons\t affected by some process appropriate to  the  given
\nsituation   and\t circumstances\tof  the\t  particular   case.
\nApplying  this principle to the facts found in\tthe  present
\ncase,  we  are\tof opinion that there  was  a  definite\t and
\nunequivocal declaration of his intention to separate on\t the
\npart  of Savoy Ranganna and that intention was\tconveyed  to
\nrespondent  no. 1 and other members of the joint family\t and
\nrespondent  no.\t  1 had full knowledge of the  intention  of
\nSavoy  Ranganna.   It  follows therefore that  there  was  a
\ndivision  of status of Savoy Ranganna from the\tjoint  Hindu
\nfamily\twith effect from January 8, 1951 which was the\tdate
\nof the notice.\n<\/p>\n
It  was,  however, maintained on behalf of  the\t respondents
\nthat  on  January  10, 1951 Savoy Ranganna  had\t decided  to
\nwithdraw the two notices, Exs.\tA & E and he instructed\t the
\npostal authorities not to forward the notices to  respondent
\nno.   1\t and  other members of the  joint  family.   It\t was
\ncontended  that\t there could be no severance  of  the  joint
\nfamily\tafter  Savoy Ranganna had decided  to  withdraw\t the
\nnotices.   In  our  opinion, there is no  warrant  for\tthis
\nargument.  As we have already stated, there was a unilateral
\ndeclaration of an intention by Savoy Ranganna to divide from
\nthe  joint family and there was sufficient communication  of
\nthis intention to the other coparceners and therefore in law
\nthere  was  in consequence a disruption or division  of\t the
\nstatus of the joint family with effect from January 8, 1951.
\nWhen once a communication of the intention is made which has
\nresulted in the severance of the joint family status it\t was
\nnot thereafter open to Savoy Ranganna to nullify its  effect
\nso  as to restore the family to its original  joint  status.
\nIf  the intention of Savoy Ranganna had stood alone  without
\ngiving\trise  to any legal effect, it could, of\t course,  be
\nwithdrawn  by  Savoy Ranganna, but having  communicated\t the
\nintention, the divided status of the Hindu joint family\t had
\nalready\t come into existence and the legal consequences\t had
\ntaken  effect.\t It was not, therefore, possible  for  Savoy
\nRanganna to get back
\n127<\/span>
\nto the old position by mere revocation of the intention.  It
\nis,  of course, possible for the members of the family by  a
\nsubsequent agreement to reunite, but the mere withdrawal  of
\nthe  unilateral\t declaration of the  intention\tto  separate
\nwhich already had resulted in the division in status  cannot
\namount to an agreement to reunite.  It should also be stated
\nthat  the question whether there was a subsequent  agreement
\nbetween\t the members to reunite is a question of fact to  be
\nproved as such.\t In the present case, there is no allegation
\nin  the written statement nor is there any evidence  on\t the
\npart of the respondents that there was any such agreement to
\nreunite\t after\tJanuary.8,  1951.  The\tview  that  we\thave
\nexpressed  is borne out by the decision of the\tMadras\tHigh
\nCourt in Kurapati Radhakrishna v. Kurapati  Satyanarayana(1)
\nin which there was a suit for declaration that the sales  in
\nrespect\t of  certain  family properties\t did  not  bind\t the
\nplaintiff  and\tfor partition of his  share  and  possession
\nthereof\t and  the plaint referred to an\t earlier  suit.\t for
\npartition instituted by the 2nd defendant in the later suit.
\nIt  was\t alleged  in that suit\tthat  ‘the  plaintiff  being
\nunwilling  to  remain  with the defendants  has\t decided  to
\nbecome divided and he has filed this suit for separation  of
\nhis   one-fifth\t  share\t in  the  assets   remaining   after
\ndischarging  the family debts separated and for recovery  of
\npossession  of the same’.  All the defendants in  that\tsuit
\nwere  served  with the summons and on the death of  the\t 1st
\ndefendant  therein  after  the\tsettlement  of\tissues,\t the
\nplaintiff  in that action made the following endorsement  on
\nthe  plaint  :\t“As the 1st defendant has died\tand  as\t the
\nplaintiff  had\tto manage the family, the  plaintiff  hereby
\nrevokes the intention to divide expressed in the plaint\t and
\nagreeing  to remain as a joint family member,  he  withdraws
\nthe  suit.’  It\t was held by the Madras-High  Court  that  a
\ndivision  in  status had already been brought about  by\t the
\nplaint\tin the suit and it was not open to the plaintiff  to
\nrevoke\tor  withdraw the unambiguous intention\tto  separate
\ncontained  in the plaint so as to restore the  joint  status
\nand as such the members should be treated as divided members
\nfor the purpose of working Out their respective rights.
\nWe  proceed, to consider the next question arising  in\tthis
\nappeal\twhether\t the plaint filed on January  13,  1951\t was
\nvalidly\t executed  by  Savoy Ranganna  and  whether  he\t had
\naffixed his thumb impression thereon after understanding its
\ncontents.   The\t case of the appellants is that\t Sri  M.  S.
\nRanganathan  prepared the plaint and had gone to the  Sharda
\nNursing\t Home at about 9-30 or 10 a.m. on January 13,  1951.
\nSri  Ranganathan wrote out the plaint which was\t in  English
\nand  translated it to Savoy Ranganna who approved the  same.
\nP.W.  2,  the clerk of Sri Ranganathan has deposed  to\tthis
\neffect.\t  He  took the ink-pad and affixed  the\t left  thumb
\nimpression  of Savoy Ranganna on the plaint and also on\t the
\nVakalatnama.   There  is  the  attestation  of\tSri  M.\t  S.
\nRanganathan on the
\n(1)  (1948)2M.L.J.331.\n<\/p>\n
128<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint and on the Vakalatnama.\tThe papers were handed\tover
\nto  P.W.  2  who after purchasing  the\tnecessary  court-fee
\nstamps filed the plaint and the Vakalatnama in the court  at
\nabout 11.30, a.m. or 12 noon on the same day.  The  evidence
\nof  P.W. 2 is corroborated by P.W. 5 Chinnanna.\t Counsel  on
\nbehalf of the respondents., however, criticised the evidence
\nof  P.W.  2 on the ground that the doctor, D.W. 6  had\tsaid
\nthat the mental condition of the patient was bad and he\t was
\nnot  able to understand things when he examined him  on\t the
\nmorning\t of  January  13,  1951.  D.W.\t6  deposed  that  he
\nexamined  Savoy Ranganna during his usual rounds on  January
\n13,  1951  between  8  and  9  a.m.  and  found\t “his  pulse
\nimperceptible  and the sounds of the heart feeble”.  On\t the
\nquestion  as  to  whether Savoy\t Ranganna  was\tsufficiently
\nconscious  to  execute the plaint and the  Vakalatnama,\t the
\ntrial court has accepted the evidence of P.W. 2,  Keshavaiah
\nin  preference\tto  that of D.W. 6. We\tsee  no\t reason\t for
\ndiffering  from the estimate of the trial court with  regard
\nto  the evidence of P.W. 2. The trial court has pointed\t out
\nthat  it is difficult to accept the evidence of D.W  6\tthat
\nSavoy  Ranganna was not conscious on the morning of  January
\n13, 1951.  In cross-examination D.W. 6 admitted that on\t the
\nnight of January 12, 1951 Savoy Ranganna was conscious.\t  He
\nfurther admitted that on January 13, 1951 he prescribed\t the
\nsame  medicines\t to Savoy Ranganna as he had  prescribed  on
\nJanuary 12, 1951.  There is no note of the necessary data in
\nthe case sheet, Ex. I to suggest that Savoy Ranganna was not
\nconscious  an  January\t13,  1951.   It\t is  therefore\t not
\nunreasonable assume that the condition of Savoy Ranganna was
\nthe  same  on January 13′, 1951 as on January 12,  1951\t and
\nthere was no perceptible change noticeable in his  condition
\nbetween\t the  two dates.  In these circumstances it  is\t not
\npossible  to  accept  the  evidence of\tD.W.  6\t that  Savoy
\nRanganna was unconscious on the morning of January 13, 1951.
\nIt was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that D.W. 7,
\nMiss  Arnold has also given evidence that the  condition  of
\nSavoy  Ranganna became worse day by day and on the last\t day
\nhis condition was very bad and he could not understand much,
\nnor could he respond to her calls.  The trial court was not.
\nimpressed  with\t the  evidence\tof  this  witness.   In\t our
\nopinion, her evidence suffers from the same infirmity as  of
\nD.W. 6, because the case sheet, Ex.  I does not\t corroborate
\nher  evidence.\tIt is also difficult to believe that D.W.  7
\ncould remember the details of Savoy Ranganna’s. case after a
\nlapse  of three years without the help of any  written\tcase
\nsheet There is also an important discrepancy in the evidence
\nof D.W. 7. She said that on January 13, 1951 she called D.W.
\n6  at  12 noon since the condition of the patient  was\tvery
\nbad,  but  D.W.\t 6  has said that he  did  not\tvisit  Savoy
\nRanganna  after 8 or 9 a.m. on that date.  Comment was\tmade
\nby Counsel on behalf of the respondents that Sri Ranganathan
\nwas not examined as a witness to prove that he had prepared
\n129<\/span>
\nthe  plaint  and  Savoy\t Ranganna  had\taffixed\t his   thumb
\nimpression in his presence.  In our opinion, the omission of
\nSri   Ranganathan   to\tgive  evidence\tin  this   case\t  is
\nunfortunate.  It would have been proper conduct on his. part
\nif  he\thad returned the brief of the appellants  and  given
\nevidence  in the case as to the execution of the plaint\t and
\nthe  Vakalatnama.   But\t in spite of  this  circumstance  we
\nconsider  that\tthe,  evidence of the  appellants  or,\tthis
\naspect\tof  the\t case  must be\taccepted  as  true.   It  is
\nnecessary to notice that the plaint and the Vakalatnama\t are
\nboth   counter-signed  by  Sri\tRanganathan–a\t responsible
\nAdvocate-and  it is not likely that he would  subscribe\t his
\nsignatures to these documents if they had been executed by a
\nperson\twho was unable to understand the  contents  thereof.
\nAs we have already said, it is unfortunate that the Advocate
\nSri  Ranganathan has not been examined as a witness, but  in
\nspite  of this omission we are satisfied that the  evidence-
\nadduced\t in  the case has established  that  Savoy  Ranganna
\nvalidly executed the plaint and the Vakalatnama and that  he
\nwas  conscious\tand  was in full possession  of\t his  mental
\nfaculties  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  these\t two
\ndocuments.   It follows therefore that the,  appellants\t and
\nrespondent   no.   4  who  are\tthe  daughters\t and   legal
\nrepresentatives\t of Savoy Ranganna are entitled to a  decree
\nin the terms granted by the District Judge of Mysore.
\nFor  the reasons expressed, we hold that this appeal  should
\nbe  allowed,  the judgment of the Mysore  High\tCourt  dated
\nDecember5,  1960 in R.A. no. 81 of 1956 should be set  aside
\nand  that of’ the District Judge, Mysore dated\tOctober\t 31,
\n1955  in  O.S. no. 34 of 1950-51 should\t be  restored.\t The
\nappeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
\nV.P.S.\t\t\tAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
130<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1018, 1968 SCR (3) 119 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: PUTTARANGAMMA & 2 ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: M. S. RANGANNA & 3 ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/02\/1968 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: […]<\/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-245952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPuttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968 - 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\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-26T09:56:58+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T09:56:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968\"},\"wordCount\":4492,\"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\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968\",\"name\":\"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T09:56:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968 - 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\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-26T09:56:58+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968","datePublished":"1968-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T09:56:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968"},"wordCount":4492,"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\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968","name":"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T09:56:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puttarangamma-2-ors-vs-m-s-ranganna-3-ors-on-8-february-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Puttarangamma & 2 Ors vs M. S. Ranganna & 3 Ors on 8 February, 1968"}]},{"@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\/245952","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=245952"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245952\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}