{"id":35017,"date":"1967-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967"},"modified":"2016-03-12T23:18:57","modified_gmt":"2016-03-12T17:48:57","slug":"gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967","title":{"rendered":"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1595, \t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 932<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGUMMANNA SHETTY &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNAGAVENIAMMA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/05\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1595\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 932\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1972 SC2219\t (4,12)\n\n\nACT:\nMadras Aliyasanthana Act (9 of 1949), s. 3(6)-Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nBy a registered deed dated September 4, 1900, a group of  19\npersons\t forming a joint family with community\tof  property\ngoverned  by  the Aliyasanthana law of\tinheritance,  formed\nthemselves  into  two  branches\t not  according\t to  natural\nKavaruts but into artificial branches and divided the family\nproperties.   In  1953,\t the members of\t one  of  these\t two\nartificial  branches  instituted  a suit  against  the\tsole\nsurviving member of the other branch who was a nissan thathi\nkavaru for partition of all the properties comprised in\t the\ndeed  of  1900,\t allegation that the deed  only\t effected  a\ndivision  for convenience of enjoyment and not\tan  outright\npartition.\nOn  the\t question  whether  under s.  36(6)  of\t the  Madras\nAliyasanthana  Act, 1949, the deed of 1900 should be  deemed\nto have effected a partition of the properties,\nHELD : The deed on its true construction, did not effect  an\nout-right  partition nor could it be deemed to be a deed  of\npartition  under s. 36(6) ,of the Act, because, the  kutumba\nwas  split into two artificial groups and not  according  to\nthe kavarus. [937C-D]\nOne of the four conditions necessary as a pre-requisite\t for\nthe  application of the section is that the distribution  of\nproperties is among all the kavarus of the kutumba for their\nseparate and absolute enjoyment in perpetuity.\tThat is, the\nsub-section  applies to a family settlement under which\t the\nkutumba\t is split up according to kavarus as defined  in  s.\n3(b)  of  the Act, and the  kutumba  properties\t distributed\namong such kavarus. [936F-G; 937B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 910 of<br \/>\n1964.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated February 28,\t1961<br \/>\n,of  the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. (M)  70  of<br \/>\n1956.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.   K. Krishna Menon, M. Veerappa, Sreedharan Nambiar,<br \/>\nD.   P.\t Singh and H. K.  Puri, for the appellants.<br \/>\nS. T. Desai, R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nBachawat, J. By a registered deed dated September 4, 1900, a<br \/>\ngroup of 19 persons forming a joint family-with community of<br \/>\nproperty  governed by the Aliyasanthana Law of\tinheritance,<br \/>\nformed themselves into two branches and divided &#8216;the  family<br \/>\npro-\n<\/p>\n<p>9 3 3<br \/>\nperties.  The second branch consisted of the descendants  of<br \/>\nSarasamma and Brahmi and some descendants of Nemakka-in\t all<br \/>\nI 0 persons.  The first branch consisted of Nemakka and\t the<br \/>\nrest  of  her descendants and her sister Sivadevi-in  all  9<br \/>\npersons,  In 1953, Damamma was the sole surviving member  of<br \/>\nthe second branch.  She was a nissanthathi kavaru, 70  years<br \/>\nold  having  no descendants.  In 1953, the  members  of\t the<br \/>\nfirst branch instituted a suit against Damamma for partition<br \/>\nof all the properties comprised in the deed dated  September<br \/>\n4,  1900,  alleging that the deed effected  a  division\t for<br \/>\nconvenience of enjoyment and maintenance only and was not an<br \/>\nabsolute or out-right partition The defence of Darnamma\t was<br \/>\nthat  the  deed effected an outright partition.\t  The  trial<br \/>\ncourt  accepted\t the  plaintiff&#8217;s contention  and  passed  a<br \/>\npreliminary decree for partition.  Darnamma filed an  appeal<br \/>\nin the Mysore High Court.  During the pendency of the appeal<br \/>\nshe  died and one Nagaveniamma claiming under her  will\t was<br \/>\nsubstituted  in her place as her legal representative.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court  held  that the deed dated\tSeptember  4,  1900,<br \/>\neffected an out-right partition.  On this finding, the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the<br \/>\ntrial  court  and dismised the suit.  From this\t decree\t the<br \/>\npresent appeal has been filed under a certificate granted by<br \/>\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  joint  family properties were formerly managed  by\t its<br \/>\nyajaman,  one Manjappa.\t Upon his death, the parties to\t the<br \/>\ndeed  dated  September 4, 1900, apprehended  disputes.\t The<br \/>\nobject\tof  the\t deed  was to  prevent\tsuch  disputes,\t and<br \/>\nconsequential  wastage\tof  property  and  to  preserve\t the<br \/>\ndignity\t of the family.\t The family properties were  divided<br \/>\ninto  two parts, and a portion was allotted to each  branch.<br \/>\nThe deed provided that the properties allotted to the  first<br \/>\nbranch would be enjoyed by its members and would be  mutated<br \/>\nin  Nemakka&#8217;s name, and Siddappa, a member of  this  branch,<br \/>\nwould  manage the properties, pay the tirve and cesses,\t and<br \/>\nconduct\t the  maintenance of its  members.   The  properties<br \/>\nallotted  to  the  second branch would\tbe  enjoyed  by\t its<br \/>\nmembers\t and would be mutated in the name of Nagu, a  member<br \/>\nof that branch, and Chandayia, another member of the branch,<br \/>\nwould  manage the properties, pay the tirve and cesses,\t and<br \/>\nconduct\t the maintenance of its members.  Parts of  items  2<br \/>\nand  5 of the properties were allotted to the two  branches,<br \/>\nbut the entire tirve, and cesses for the two items would  be<br \/>\npaid  by the first branch, and the arrears of the tirve,  if<br \/>\nany,  would form a charge on the properties allotted to\t the<br \/>\nfirst  branch.\t The  deed provided  that  &#8220;as\tregards\t the<br \/>\nproperties enjoyed as mentioned above by the members of\t the<br \/>\nfirst branch, the members of the said branch and the descen-<br \/>\ndants that shall be born to them in future should enjoy\t the<br \/>\nsame and as regards the properties enjoyed by the members of<br \/>\nthe  second branch, the members of the said branch  and\t the<br \/>\ndescendants  that  shall be born to them  in  future  should<br \/>\nenjoy the same<br \/>\n9 34<br \/>\nand  in\t this  manner,\tthey  should  enjoy  the  properties<br \/>\nseparately.   Further, after the lifetime of the  member  of<br \/>\nthe  respective\t branches who obtains the kudathale  of\t the<br \/>\nproperties   allotted  to  the\trespective   branches,\t the<br \/>\nkudathale should be got entered successively in the name  of<br \/>\nthe  senior-most  male or female member\t of  the  respective<br \/>\nbranches.&#8221;  The\t common debt of the family  was\t apportioned<br \/>\nbetween\t the two branches, and each branch  would  discharge<br \/>\nits  share  of the debt and interest thereon as\t quickly  as<br \/>\npossible.  If the manager of any branch allowed the interest<br \/>\nto fall in arrears, the members of the branch would  appoint<br \/>\nanother\t manager in his place.\tEach branch would  have\t the<br \/>\npower  to  execute documents creating a\t security  over\t the<br \/>\nproperties  allotted to it for payment of its share  of\t the<br \/>\ncommon\tdebt.  No member of the family would have the  right<br \/>\nto incur other debts.  The deed provided that : &#8220;If any debt<br \/>\nis  borrowed,  the very person who borrows the\tdebt  should<br \/>\ndischarge  it with his personal liability; and further,\t the<br \/>\nmovable\t and  immovable\t properties of this  family  or\t the<br \/>\nmembers\t of  the family should not become  liable  for\tsuch<br \/>\ndebt.&#8221; Another clause provided that : &#8220;These immovable\tpro-<br \/>\nperties or any portion thereof and the right of\t maintenance<br \/>\nof  any individual should not be alienated in any manner  by<br \/>\nway of mortgage,. sale, gift, inulageni, artha mulageni\t and<br \/>\nvaide  geni.  Contrary to this term, if alienation is  made,<br \/>\nsuch alienation should not be valid.&#8221; The deed also provided<br \/>\n:  &#8220;If\tthere are no descendants at all\t completely  in\t the<br \/>\nfirst  branch,\tthe members belonging to the  second  branch<br \/>\nshall  be  entitled  to the  entire  movable  and  immovable<br \/>\nproperties  of\tthe said first branch; and if there  are  no<br \/>\ndescendants at all completely in the second branch, the mem-<br \/>\nbers  of  the first branch shall be entitled to\t the  entire<br \/>\nmovable and immovable properties of the said second branch.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe sole question arising in this appeal is whether the deed<br \/>\ndated September 4, 1900, effected a disruption of the _joint<br \/>\nfamily\tor  whether it made a division\tfor  convenience  of<br \/>\nenjoyment and maintenance only.\t In 1900, when this deed was<br \/>\nexecuted, one or more members of a joint family governed  by<br \/>\nthe Aliyasanthana law of inheritance had no right to claim a<br \/>\npartition  of the joint family properties, but by  a  family<br \/>\narrangement  entered  into  with  the  consent\tof  all\t its<br \/>\nmembers,  the  properties could be  divided  and  separately<br \/>\nenjoyed.   In  such families, an  arrangement  for  separate<br \/>\npossession  and enjoyment without actual disruption  of\t the<br \/>\nfamily\twas common.  An arrangement for\t separate  enjoyment<br \/>\ndid  not  effect  a  disruption of  the\t family,  unless  it<br \/>\ncompletely  extinguished  the community of interest  in\t the<br \/>\nfamily\t properties.   The  character  of  the\tdeed   dated<br \/>\nSeptember 4, 1900. must be judged in this background.<br \/>\nThe  respondent\t relies on several features of the  deed  as<br \/>\nindicative  of an out-right partition.\tThe properties\twere<br \/>\ndivided<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">935<\/span><br \/>\ninto  two  shares.  Each branch was to enjoy  its  share  in<br \/>\nperpetuity   from  generation  to  generation  without\t any<br \/>\ninterference from the other branch.  There would be separate<br \/>\nmutations  and separate pattas in respect of the  properties<br \/>\nallotted  to each branch.  The assessments were to  be\tpaid<br \/>\nseparately.  Each branch would have I separate manager.\t The<br \/>\nshare  of  the common debt allotted to each branch  and\t the<br \/>\ninterest  thereon  would  be  paid  separately.\t  All  these<br \/>\nfeatures  coupled  with other circumstances may\t indicate  a<br \/>\ncomplete   disruption  of  the\tfamily.\t  See  Sulaiman\t  v.<br \/>\nBiyathumma(1).\tBut  there are other features  of  the\tdeed<br \/>\nwhich\tindicate  that\tit  did\t not  effect  an   out-right<br \/>\npartition.   The object of the deed was to prevent  disputes<br \/>\nand wastage of properties and to preserve the dignity of the<br \/>\nfamily.\t In terms, the deed did not declare that there was a<br \/>\ncomplete disruption of the family.  In case of a  partition,<br \/>\na Kutumba governed by the Aliyasanthana law is usually split<br \/>\nup  according  to natural kavarus but under this  deed,\t the<br \/>\nKutumba\t was  split up into two\t artificial  branches.\t The<br \/>\nmembers\t of the two branches were restrained from  incurring<br \/>\ndebts  binding on the family properties and from  alienating<br \/>\nthe  properties\t or  any portion thereof  and  granting\t any<br \/>\nleases\texcept in the ordinary course of management.   These<br \/>\nrestrictions  were  obviously  placed  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\npreserving  the family properties intact for the benefit  of<br \/>\nboth  branches.\t  The  High  Court said\t that  as  the\tdeed<br \/>\neffected an out-right partition, the conditions\t restraining<br \/>\nalienations  were  void\t under Sec. 10 of  the\tTransfer  of<br \/>\nProperty  Act.\tBut the point in issue is whether  the\tdeed<br \/>\neffected  in  out-right\t partition.   The  restrictions\t  on<br \/>\nalienation  rather indicate that the parties did not  intend<br \/>\nto  effect  an.\t out-right  partition,\tand  they  wanted  a<br \/>\ndivision  for convenience of enjoyment on be.  footing\tthat<br \/>\nneither\t branch\t had the right to alienate.  If\t the  family<br \/>\narrangement  took effect as a division for  convenience\t of&#8217;<br \/>\nenjoyment  only,  and  not as an  out-right  partition,\t the<br \/>\nrestrictions  on alienations were not hit by Sec. 10 of\t the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property On the   nissanthathi,  its  properties<br \/>\nwould pass to the members of the other\tbranch.\t This clause<br \/>\nindicates   that  on  one  branch  becoming  extinct&#8217;,\t the<br \/>\nproperties allotted to it would pass by survivorship of\t the<br \/>\nother  branch.\tHad there been an out-right  partition,\t the<br \/>\nsole  surviving kavaru would be entitled to dispose- of\t her<br \/>\nseparate  property  by a will under the\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nMalabar\t Wills\tAct  &#8216;898.   The absence  of  such  a  right<br \/>\nindicates that the deed did not effect a complete disruption<br \/>\nof  the joint family.  On a consideration of the deed  as  a<br \/>\nwhole  in all its parts, we are constrained  hold  that\t the<br \/>\ndeed  on its true construction did not effect an  ,tit-right<br \/>\npartition  of  the  joint  family.  We may  add\t that  in  a<br \/>\ncompromise dated August 10, 1909 in O.S. No. 10 of 1909 to<br \/>\n&#8216;(1) 32 M.L.J. 137 P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>9 Sup. C I\/67 1 6<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">936<\/span><br \/>\nwhich  the  members  of\t the  second  branch  were  parties,<br \/>\nDamamma\t .solemnly admitted and declared that the  deed\t was<br \/>\nnot  a partition deed, but was a family arrangement for\t the<br \/>\nconvenient enjoyment of the properties by the members of the<br \/>\nfamily\tso  that &#8216;the proper-ties may be increased  and\t not<br \/>\nwasted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Counsel for the respondent contended that the deed should be<br \/>\ndeemed to have effected a partition of the joint family pro-<br \/>\nperties under section 36(6) of the Madras Aliyasantana\tAct,<br \/>\n1949.\tThis contention was repelled by the trial court\t and<br \/>\nwas not pressed in the High Court.  Section 36(6) reads :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;A  registered family settlement (by  whatever<br \/>\n\t      name  called)  or an award, to which  all\t the<br \/>\n\t      major  members  of a kutumba are\tparties\t and<br \/>\n\t      under   which   the  whole  of   the   kutumba<br \/>\n\t      properties  have been or were intended  to  be<br \/>\n\t      distributed,   or\t  purport   to\t have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      distributed,  among  all the  kavarus  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      kutumba\tfor  their  separate  and   absolute<br \/>\n\t      enjoyment in perpetuity, shall be deemed to be<br \/>\n\t      a\t  partition   of  the\tkutumba\t  properties<br \/>\n\t      notwithstanding  any terms to the contrary  in<br \/>\n\t      such settlement or award.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>As  was\t pointed  out by Ramaswami J.  in  Kaveri  v.  Ganga<br \/>\nRatna(1),  the following four conditions are  the  necessary<br \/>\nprerequisites for the application of Sec. 36(6) :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (1)   there is a registered family  settlement<br \/>\n\t      or<br \/>\n\t      award;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   all the major members of the kutumba are<br \/>\n\t      par-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      ties to it;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (3)   the whole of the kutumba properties have<br \/>\n\t      been or were intended or purport to have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      distributed under it; and<br \/>\n\t      (4)   the\t  distribution\tis  among  all\t the<br \/>\n\t      kavarus of the kutumba for their separate\t and<br \/>\n\t      absolute enjoyment in perpetuity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  onus  is  upon the respondent to prove  that  the\tdeed<br \/>\ndated,\t September  4,\t1900,  satisfies  all\tthese\tfour<br \/>\nconditions.  The plea that the deed satisfies the conditions<br \/>\nof S. 36(6), was not taken in the written statement, nor was<br \/>\nany issue raised on the point.\tThe materials on the  record<br \/>\ndo  not show that the. deed satisfies all the conditions  of<br \/>\nS.  36(6).   The trial court found that\t though\t Damamma,  a<br \/>\nmember of the kutumba, was a major on September 4, 1900, she<br \/>\ndid not execute the deed.  The deed described her as a minor<br \/>\nunder the guardianship of Padmaraja.  From the<br \/>\n(1)  [1956] I.M.L.J. 98, IC6.\n<\/p>\n<p>93 7<br \/>\nmaterials on the record it is not possible to say definitely<br \/>\nthat  the  whole of the kutumba properties  was\t distributed<br \/>\nunder  the deed.  Moreover, S. 36(6) can apply only  if\t the<br \/>\ndistribution was &#8220;among all the kavarus of the kutumba&#8221;.  S.<br \/>\n3(b) defines kavaru.  Used in relation to a female, it means<br \/>\nthe group of persons consisting of that female, her children<br \/>\nand  all  her descendants in the female line,  and  used  in<br \/>\nrelation  to  a male, it means the kavaru of the  mother  of<br \/>\nthat  male.  Having regard to the scheme of S. 36, we  think<br \/>\nthat S. 36(6) applies to a family settlement under which the<br \/>\nkutumba is split up according to kavarus as defined in S.  3\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  and the kutumba properties are distributed\t among\tsuch<br \/>\nkavarus.   Section  36(6)  cannot apply to  the\t deed  dated<br \/>\nSeptember 4, 1900, under which the kutumba was split up into<br \/>\ntwo artificial groups, one consisting of the descendants  of<br \/>\nSarasamma  and Brahmi and some descendants of  Nemakka,\t and<br \/>\nthe other consisting of Nemakka, the rest of her descendants<br \/>\nand Sivadevi, and the properties were divided between  these<br \/>\ntwo artificial groups.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  follows  that the deed dated September 4, 1900,  on\t its<br \/>\ntrue construction, did not effect an out-right partition nor<br \/>\ncan it be deemed to be a deed of partition under S. 36(6) of<br \/>\nthe Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  -the  result, the appeal is allowed without\t costs,\t the<br \/>\njudgment and decree passed by the High Court is sell  aside,<br \/>\nand the decree of the trial court is restored.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.T.S.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">938<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1595, 1967 SCR (3) 932 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: GUMMANNA SHETTY &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: NAGAVENIAMMA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/05\/1967 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA CITATION: 1967 AIR 1595 [&hellip;]<\/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-35017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-12T17:48:57+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T17:48:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2216,\"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\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967\",\"name\":\"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T17:48:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-12T17:48:57+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967","datePublished":"1967-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T17:48:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967"},"wordCount":2216,"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\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967","name":"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T17:48:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gummanna-shetty-ors-vs-nagaveniamma-on-4-may-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gummanna Shetty &amp; Ors vs Nagaveniamma on 4 May, 1967"}]},{"@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\/35017","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=35017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}