i

Table of Contents
Table of Cases ............................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Statutes ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ iv
Chapter I..................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Relevant Facts ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Issues ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Research Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Research Scheme ............................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Research Methodology .................................................................................................... 5
Chapter II ................................................................................................................................... 6
Issues arising out of Unilateral declaration to separate from the joint family ........................... 6
2.1 Unequivocal and Unilateral Declaration of the Intention to Sever from the Joint Family
................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Whether the Communication to All the Members of the Joint Family is Necessary ...... 7
2.3 Whether the Unequivocal and Unilateral Declaration can be Withdrawn Once it is
Dispatched if it has not been Communicated to any Other Member of the Joint Family...... 8
2.4 Recent Developments .................................................................................................... 10
Chapter III ................................................................................................................................ 11
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 11



ii

TABLE OF CASES

A-Z Bazaars v Ministry of Agriculture, (1974) 4 SA 392 8
A. Raghavamma and Anr. v. Chenchamma and Anr. , 1964 AIR 136 1-12
Chauhan Dajiji Baldevji v. Pithuji Galabji Chauhan and 20 Ors, (2011) 1 GLR 870 10
Dunmore v Alexander , (1830) 9 Sh 190 9
Gian Chand and Brothers and Anr. v. Rattan Lal, MANU/SC/0015/2013 10
Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj, (1916) 18 BOMLR 621 6
Jaynarain Giri v. Girischunder Myti , 4 Cal. 434 : (5 I. a. 228 P. C.) 7
Kaliammal and Others v. K. Mayilsamy and Others, (2012) 7 MLJ 498 10
Kamepalli Avilam v. Mannem Venkataswamy, 1917 (13) MLJ 746 6
Man Singh v. Ram Kala and Ors, AIR 2011 SC 1542 10
Narayana Rao v. Purushotama Rao, 1917 (13) MLJ 746 6
Puttarangamma v. M. S. Ranganna, AIR 1968 SC 1018 8
Rama Ayyar v. Meenakshi Ammal , (1938) 1 MLJ 45 6
Sh . Sohan singh v. Shri Bishan Singh, (2011) 162 PLR 173 8
Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain, 35 ALL 80 : (40 I. A. 40 P. C.) 7
Tata Communications Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, MANU/TD/0160/2012 10
Union of India (UOI) v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr, (2012) 8 SCC 148 10
Wenkheim v Arndt, (1873) 1 JR 73 9


iii

TABLE OF STATUTES

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Indian Contract Act, 1872




iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter
S. Section
Ed. Edition
Ibid Ibidem
MLJ Madras Law Journal
p. Page
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
1.1.1 Relevant Facts
The appellants and the respondents trace their interest and rights through their
geneology to one Veeranna who died in 1906. One of his sons Pitchayya, predeceased him in
1905 and it is alleged that sometime before his death Pitchayya took Venkayya, the son of his
brother Chimpirayya, in adoption. It is further alleged that a partition of the joint family
properties between Veeranna and his four sons took place. Venkayya died in 1938 having a
son Subbarao. Chimpirayya died in 1945 having executed a will whereunder he gave his
properties in equal shares to Subbarao and Kamalamma, the daughter of his predeceased
daughter. He also directed Raghavamma, the wife of his brother Pitchayya, to take possession
of the entire property belonging to him, manage it and to hand over the same to his two grand
children when they attained majority. Chimpirayya excluded his daughter-in-law
Chenchamma from management as well as inheritance. But Raghavamma allowed
Chenchamma to take possession of the property. Subbarao died in 1949. In 1930,
Raghavamma filed a suit for possession of the property impleading Chenchamma as the first
defendant, Kamalamma as the second defendant and Punnayya as the third defendant.
1


1
Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr., 1964 AIR 136.
2



3

1.1.2 Issues
In the course of deciding the case the following issues arose:
Burden of proof and onus of proof
There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of
proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts but the onus of proof
shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. It is well
settled that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an
adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and
its validity.
2

Unequivocal and unilateral declaration to separate
It is settled law that a member of a joint Hindu family can bring about his separation
in status by a definite and unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his intention to separate
himself from the family and enjoy his share in severality. One cannot declare or manifest his
mental state in a vaccum. To declare is to make known, to assert to others. Others must
necessarily be those affected by the said declaration. Therefore, a member of a joint Hindu
family seeking to separate himself from others will have to make known his intention to the
other members of the family from whom he seeks to separate. A declaration to be effective
should reach the person or persons affected by one process or other appropriate to a given
situation.
3

Doctrine of Relation Back
Once the declaration is expressed and brought to the knowledge of the person
affected, it relates back to the date of declaration or the expression of intention to separate. As
the doctrine of relation back involves retroactivity, it cannot affect vested rights. It would
follow that, though the date of severance is that of manifestation of the intention to separate,
the rights accrued to others in the joint family property between the said manifestation and
the knowledge of it by the other members would be saved.
4


2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
4

In the study on this case the primary focus of the researcher would be on the latter two
issues which arose in the case as they are of substantive importance in understanding of the
laws of succession in Hindus.
1.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The primary focus of this study is the leading case of Addagada Raghavamma and
Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.
5
In the subject of family law this case is of great
relevance due to the two principles laid down in the case. The first principle relates to the
essentials of a valid separation by an unequivocal and unilateral declaration. The second
principle applies the doctrine of relation back to the problem of the ambiguous time frame in
which severance from the joint family has taken place.
1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The unequivocal and unilateral declaration to separate need not be communicated to
all the members of the joint family.
The unequivocal and unilateral declaration can be withdrawn once it is dispatched if it
has not been communicated to any other member of the joint family.
1.4 RESEARCH SCHEME
In this project the researcher will be focusing on the leading case of Addagada
Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.
6
, following a systematic
approach including the division of this project in a number of chapters in order to conduct a
thorough study of the said case law. In the first chapter a brief introduction would be given
about the fact of the case and the various issues that arose in the case. The next chapter would
deal with the issue of unequivocal and unilateral declaration to sever from the joint property.
The third chapter would then deal in detail on the issue of relation back and its application in
family law of succession. Finally, the study would be concluded by giving a brief outline of
all the research conducted and issues resolved.

5
1964 AIR 136
6
Ibid.
5

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research conducted is doctrinal in nature. Research was conducted using both
primary and secondary resources. Mainly, the researcher has referred to a number of case
laws. There have been a few books and articles that were referred to back the study on the
various research questions. A number of articles were available on online and printed
journals. Finally the researcher has also referred to newspaper articles to understand the
recent practical developments on the issues.





6

CHAPTER II

ISSUES ARISING OUT OF UNILATERAL DECLARATION TO
SEPARATE FROM THE JOINT FAMILY

2.1 UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF THE INTENTION TO SEVER FROM
THE JOINT FAMILY
In Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj
7
(1), the Judicial Committee observed that the
manifested intention must be "clearly intimated" to the other coparceners. Sir John Wallis C.
T., and Kumaraswami Sastri J. in Kamepalli Avilam v. Mannem Venkataswamy
8
, stated that
if a coparcener did not communicate, during his life time, his intention to become divided to
the other coparcener or coparceners, the mere declaration of his intention, though expressed
or manifested, did not affect a severance in status
Hence, it is settled law that in the case of a joint Hindu family subject to the law of the
Mitaksbara, a severance of estate is effected by an unequivocal and unilateral declaration of
the intention to sever on the part of one of the joint holders of his intention to bold his share
separately, even though no actual division takes place. Therefore to affect a severance of
status from a joint family unilaterally it is necessary that the intention to sever to sever from
the joint family is declared.
However, in the cases of Rama Ayyar v. Meenakshi Ammal
9
and Narayana Rao v.
Purushotama Rao
10
, the judges in effect waived the necessity of the declaration of intention to
the other coparceners. This lead to a lot of confusion when the status of a joint family was
sought to be severed through an unilateral declaration. In the light of this fact it is imperative
to come to conclusive answer as to what constitutes a declaration.

7
(1916) 18 BOMLR 621
8
1917 (13) MLJ 746
9
(1938) 1 MLJ 45
10
1917 (13) MLJ 746
7

2.2 WHETHER THE COMMUNICATION TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT FAMILY IS
NECESSARY
It is well established that there is no set rule for the way in which a declaration must
take place so as to grant it legal effect. In fact, declaration might be assumed in special
circumstances even if there is no explicit statement by the declarer by his mere actions.
In Jaynarain Giri v. Girischunder Myti
11
, the Privy Council regarded the conduct of
one of the two members of a joint family "when he left the joint residence and withdrew
himself from commensality as indicating a fixed determination henceforward to live separate
from his cousin" and treated the fact of his borrowing money for his separate maintenance, as
well as his making a will, as indicating, at all events, that he himself considered that a
separation had taken place." The conclusion was based on the inference of intention derivable
from the acts and declarations of the member who, it was alleged, had separated himself, and
not from the conduct or attitude of any other party.
Privy Council in Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain
12
, left them no option but to hold that a
member of a joint Hindu family became separated from the other members by the fact of
suing them for partition. It may be observed that no question of notice to the other members
of the intention of one member to separate was raised in the reference to the Full Bench.
Sadasiva Aiyar J., however, stated that the phrase "clearly expressed" in the decision of the
Privy Council meant "clearly expressed to the definite knowledge of the other coparceners."
In answering the reference the learned Judge stated his conclusion in these terms:
"A member of a joint Hindu family becomes separated from the other members by the
fact of suing them for partition and by the unequivocal declaration mentioned in the plaint in
that suit when such unequivocal declaration has been definitely expressed to the other
coparcener of coparceners through the Court or otherwise."
From the basis of these cases it can be safely said that a declaration to all members of
the joint family is not necessary. Moreover, this proposition is also not practical in the current
circumstances as the members of a joint family may be living in different corners of the
world and hence it is impossible for one to declare his intention individually to each and
every such member of the joint family.

11
4 Cal. 434 : (5 I. a. 228 P. C.)
12
35 ALL 80 : (40 I. A. 40 P. C.)
8

The only reasonable rule that can be deduced from the texts and the several decisions
of the Judicial Committee is that the declaration of an intention to divide on the part of a
member of the family should be clear and unequivocal and should be indicated, manifested,
or published in such a manner as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
2.3 WHETHER THE UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNILATERAL DECLARATION CAN BE WITHDRAWN
ONCE IT IS DISPATCHED IF IT HAS NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ANY OTHER MEMBER OF
THE JOINT FAMILY
In the case of Puttarangamma v. M. S. Ranganna
13
, the question before the court was
whether a declaration made before the members of a joint family by a member to unilaterally
sever from the joint family could be revoked. On January 10, 1951 Savoy Ranganna had
decided to withdraw the two notices, Exs. A & E and he instructed the postal authorities not
to forward the notices to respondent no. 1 and other members of the joint family. It was
contended that there could be no severance of the joint family after Savoy Ranganna had
decided to withdraw the notices. However the judges did not accept this contention and stated
that there was a unilateral declaration of an intention by Savoy Ranganna to divide from the
joint family and there was sufficient communication of this intention to the other coparceners
and therefore in law there was in consequence a disruption or division of the status of the
joint family with effect from January 8, 1951. They added further that once a communication
of the intention is made which has resulted in the severance of the joint family status it was
not thereafter open to Savoy Ranganna to nullify its effect so as to restore the family to its
original joint status. If the intention of Savoy Ranganna had stood alone without giving rise to
any legal effect, it could, of course, be withdrawn by Savoy Ranganna, but having
communicated the intention, the divided status of the Hindu joint family had already come
into existence and the legal consequences had taken effect. It was not, therefore, possible for
Savoy Ranganna to get back to the old position by mere revocation of the intention. It was, of
course, possible for the members of the family by a subsequent agreement to reunite, but the
mere withdrawal of the unilateral declaration of the intention to separate which already had
resulted in the division in status cannot amount to an agreement to reunite. This case was
affirmed most recently in the case of Sh . Sohan singh v. Shri Bishan Singh
14
. Hence it is
clear that once a declaration is made to the members of a joint family to sever from the joint
family it cannot be withdrawn.

13
AIR 1968 SC 1018
14
(2011) 162 PLR 173
9

However an interesting question of law has yet not been settled by the courts. Though
it is clear that once a declaration is made to the members of a joint family to sever from the
joint family it cannot be withdrawn there is no jurisprudence to clarify the position of the law
in a case when though the declaration has been dispatched but the declaration has not yet
reached the concerned members of the joint family and before it reaches communication is
done to the effect to revoke the said declaration.
For e.g. A decides to sever from the joint family definitely and unilaterally. He posts a
letter on 17.01.2013 to the other members declaring his intention to sever from the joint
family. Now, on 19.01.2013 he comes to know that the prices of the property are bound to
increase and hence he backtracks on his decision to separate from the joint family. He calls
up the members of the family before his post reaches them and issues a revocation stating that
all the members should not consider his declaration made by post as he no longer wants to
separate from the joint family.
Though there is no specific law laid down in Hindu law regarding this issue a
comparison may be drawn with the Indian contract law. According to Indian contract act and
the case laws interpreting it an acceptance may be revoked by a speedier mode of
communication if the acceptance has not been communicated.
This has been laid down in the Scottish case of Dunmore v Alexander
15
(1830). This
view also is supported by decisions in: New Zealand in Wenkheim v Arndt
16
(1873) and
South Africa in A-Z Bazaars v Ministry of Agriculture
17
(1974). Hence according to contract
law a revocation would invalidate an acceptance if it reaches before the acceptance.
However, though an establish principle of contract law it cannot be blindly applied to
the delicate foundations of personal law of the Hindu joint family. There are two conflicting
interests in this scenario. First, the motivation to maintain the status quo of the joint family
and second, the practical limitations faced when a person indicates his intention to sever from
the joint family even if only to revoke it.
In such a situation it is advisable that the second interest prevails. The reason being
that a dysfunctional family is worse off than no family at all. If such an incident ever occurs

15
(1830) 9 Sh 190
16
(1873) 1 JR 73
17
(1974) 4 SA 392

10

and it is granted that the declaration would have no effect than it would create problems
within the family as the other members of the family would not be able to trust the member
who had indicated his intention to sever from the joint family. He will always be viewed with
suspicion and hence would be able to function as an efficient member of the family. This
would also have a negative impact on the family as a whole. On the other hand the granting
of severance would only affect that particular member of the joint family and the other
members can continue to live in perfect harmony.
2.4 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The case of Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.
18

has become an authority on a number of issues. This case has not yet been refuted and is cited
as conclusive on variety of matters such as evidence, severance of status, adoption, doctrine
of relation back, etc.
The concept of burden of proof explored in the case is considered conclusive and is
cited as an authority till date. It was so done in number of recent cases such as Gian Chand
and Brothers and Anr. v. Rattan Lal
19
, Tata Communications Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd.
20
, Union of India (UOI) v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr
21
, etc.
On the other hand the principles of succession laid down in the case are still followed
by the Indian courts as decisive on the matter. The case of followed in the recent cases of
Kaliammal and Others v. K. Mayilsamy and Others
22
, Chauhan Dajiji Baldevji v.
Pithuji Galabji Chauhan and 20 Ors
23
, Man Singh (D) By L.Rs. v. Ram Kala (D) By
L.Rs. and Ors
24
, etc.
Hence this case has held its own in the development of law in India and timeless
reference for the courts on jurisprudence in general and family law in particular.


18
1964 AIR 136
19
MANU/SC/0015/2013
20
MANU/TD/0160/2012
21
(2012) 8 SCC 148
22
(2012) 7 MLJ 498
23
(2011) 1 GLR 870
24
AIR 2011 SC 1542
11

CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

The case of Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr.
25

has become a leading authority on a number of issues. This case has not yet been refuted and
is cited as conclusive on variety of matters such as evidence, severance of status, adoption,
doctrine of relation back, etc.
In the course of the study the following salient points were observed in relation to the
principles established by the case and the issues arising out of it:
There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of
proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts but the onus of
proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of
evidence.
a member of a joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself from others will have to
make known his intention to the other members of the family from whom he seeks to
separate. A declaration to be effective should reach the person or persons affected by
one process or other appropriate to a given situation.
Once the declaration is expressed and brought to the knowledge of the person
affected, it relates back to the date of declaration or the expression of intention to
separate. As the doctrine of relation back involves retroactivity, it cannot affect vested
rights.
Though the date of severance is that of manifestation of the intention to separate, the
rights accrued to others in the joint family property between the said manifestation
and the knowledge of it by the other members would be saved.
A declaration to all members of the joint family is not necessary. Moreover, this
proposition is also not practical in the current circumstances as the members of a joint
family may be living in different corners of the world and hence it is impossible for

25
1964 AIR 136
12

one to declare his intention individually to each and every such member of the joint
family.
Once a declaration is made to the members of a joint family to sever from the joint
family it cannot be withdrawn.