Their Lordships regret that they are unable to accept the interpretation placed by the High Court upon the statements, and they agree with the trial Judge that the statements made by the two brothers in 1876 were false. It sometimes happens that persons make statements which serve their purpose or proceed upon ignorance of the true position; and it is not their statements, but their relations with the estate, which should be taken into consideration in determining the issue. The vital factor in a case of this kind is the nature of the interest which the members of the family have in the estate. As stated, if there has been a division of their right to, or severance of their interest in the estate, they must be held to be separate in status, though there has been no physical division of the property, and though there may be no separation in food or dwelling: Amritrao v. Mukundrao 1919 P.C. 91. If, on the other hand, there has been no such division of right or severance of interest, they continue to be joint in estate, and mere cesser of commensality would not make them separate in estate, as a member may become separate in food or residence for his convenience. A division of right or a severance of the joint status may result, not only from an agreement between the parties, but from any act or transaction which has the effect of defining their shares in the estate, though it may not partition the estate. If a document clearly shows a division of right, its legal construction and effect cannot be controlled or altered by evidence of the subsequent conduct of the parties: Balkishen Das v. Ram Narain Sahu (1903) 30 Cal. 738.
BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided On: 17.07.1936
Alluri Venkatapathi Raju and Anr. Vs. Dantuluri Venkatanarasimha Raju and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Roche, Shadi Lal and George Rankin, JJ.
Citation: AIR 1936 PC 264
