AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govinda Menon, J.—There is nothing in Hindu Law, either on principle or on authority, prohibiting a father, at the time of a family partition
from taking cash instead of landed property for his own and his minor children''s share. Mr. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar argues that partition
necessarily connotes a division of property and therefore each member is entitled to have an aliquot share of the property separated and given to
him. In case where a member is sui juris and can contract for himself, it is on his own volition that he gives up the right to property and takes
money, but in the case of a minor, the father cannot give up the son''s rights in exchange for money. But in our opinion when the father acting on
behalf of his minor son bonafide enters into a transaction by which in lieu of Immovable property he takes cash, there is nothing to be said against
such an act. On the other hand, the taking of cash with the object of dissipating it and depriving the minor of the wherewithal would amount to
fraud and such a partition can later on be questioned by the minor as a fraudulent transaction. In the case before us there is nothing proved to show
that instead of the one-sixth share in the lands, the father took cash as a result of any fraud or collusion. The fact that until now an argument like the
present one has not been put forward shows that we need not seriously consider the point because such partitions or release deeds must have
come up before Courts many thousands of times. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.