In a joint Hindu family, if sale deeds are determined to be sham transactions without consideration intended to defraud a member, the transactions are void, and the member may recover the property without being required to repay debts allegedly discharged by the purported purchasers.

Sir Lancelot Sanderson. -

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Krishna Reddi, and a cross-appeal by Gandavaram Raghava Reddi and Kodur Venkataperumal Reddi, defendants 3 and 4, from a judgment and decree dated 19th April 1920, of the High Court of Madras, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 23 of 1918.

The suit was brought as long ago as 1910, and it has had a chequered career. Defendant 1, Varada, was the father of defendant 2, Venkatarama, and the plain tiff is the son of defendant 2, and they are members of a joint undivided Hindu family. Venkatarama, defendant 2, had two wives; by his first wife he had a daughter, and by the second he had an only son, viz., the plaintiff.

It was alleged on behalf of the plain tiff that he and his mother were obliged to leave the home of defendant 2, and to live with the plaintiff' mother' people for some three-and-a-half years before the suit was brought.

Defendants 3, 4 and 5 were alleged to be close friends of defendant 2. By a document dated 22nd January 1910, defendant 1, Varada, purported to sell to defendant 3 properties comprised therein and specified in Sch. A to the plaint. The consideration was alleged to be Rs. 15,000 and the property was alleged to be the self-acquired property of defendant 1.

On the same day, defendants 1 and 2 (defendant 2 purporting to act for himself and his minor son, the plaintiff), by another document purported to convey to defendant 4 the property comprised therein, and described in Sch. B to the plaint. The consideration was alleged to be Rs. 20,000, through a bond executed in favour of defendant 2 for discharging certain debts specified therein, and also other family debts.

On 9th February 1910, defendant 2 purported, by means of an alleged deed of gift of that date, to give certain properties specified in Sch. C to the plaint in favour of a temple, of which defendant 5 was trustee.

The plaintiff alleged that the proper ties specified in Sch. A, B and C were joint family properties of the family, of which the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were members, that the above-men tioned alleged deeds of sale and the deed of gift were fraudulent and devoid of consideration, that there was no legal necessity, and that the alleged deeds were nullities.

On 31st January 1910, the alleged deeds of sale were registered, in spite of the plaintiff' mother' objection before the Registrar.

The suit was brought on 15th April 1910 and the plaintiff claimed therein a declaration that the sale-deeds and the deed of gift were null and void and that he should be put in possession of the above-mentioned properties on behalf of the joint family. There was an alter native prayer for partition in case it was held that the deeds were in any way binding on the interests of defendants 1 and 2.

The case of the contesting defendants, viz., defendants 3 and 4, was that the sales were bona fide and that consider ation passed for them, and that title was intended to and did actually pass to them.

Defendant 1 was an old man, and it was alleged that defendant 2 was acting as manager of the family.

The learned Subordinate Judge found that the sale-deeds were made to defraud ; the plaintiff, that they were not bona fide to discharge antecedent debts, and that they were not valid as against the plaintiff to the extent of his share, viz., one-quarter. He held that the properties in Sch. A were joint family properties. This finding is not now disputed. He held, further, that the gift of the properties in Sch. C was invalid. This finding also is not now disputed

While holding that there was consider ation and that title was intended to pass under the two deeds of sale, he found there was no necessity for the sales and made a decree, dated 15th April 1913, that defendants 3 and 4 should put the plaintiff in possession of his share of the properties on his paying into Court Rs. 2,945-11-6 (i. e. one-quarter of Rs. 11,782-14-0), to be paid to defen dants 3 and 4 in the way they might arrange between themselves. It w