Add to favourtiesVenkataramayya v. Tatayya , 1943 SCeJ 001 (Mad.) is a decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
It was pointed out there that “mere jointness in residence, food or worship or a mere trading together cannot bring about the conversion of the divided status into a joint one with all the usual incidents of jointness in estate and interest unless an intention to become reunited in the sense of the Hindu law is clearly established”.
The said proposition is unexceptionable, and indeed that is the well settled law. But on the facts of that case, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that there was a reunion. The partition there was effected between a father and his sons by the first wife. One of the sons was a minor. The question was whether there was are union between the brothers soon after the alleged partition. The learned Judges held that as between the sons there was never any reason for separation inter se, and that the evidence disclosed that on their conduct no explanation other than reunion was possible. They also pointed out that though at the time of partition one of the brothers was a minor, after he attained majority, he accepted the position of reunion. The observations relied upon by the learned Attorney-General read thus:
“In our view, it is not necessary that there should be a formal and express agreement to reunite. Such an agreement can be established by clear evidence of conduct incapable of explanation on any other footing.”
This principle also is unexceptionable. But the facts of that case are entirely different from those in the present case, and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges cannot help us in arriving at a finding in the instant case.”
Anil Kumar Mitra v. Ganendra Nath Mitra 1997 SCeJ 004, held that the acts of the parties may lead to the inference that parties reunited after previous partition. In paragraph 4, following observations have been made:-
“4………………………….It is true that by the acts of the parties that even after the previous partition, they continued to be members of the joint family. But it should be by conduct and treatment meted out to the properties by the members of the family in this regard……………………………”
