Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
DODDAMUNIYAPPA(DEAD) THROUGH LRS – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MUNISWAMY AND OTHERS – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No (s). 7141 of 2008
Decided on : 01-07-2019
(a) Hindu law - Inheritance - On death of father (propositus of the family) the property devolving on the sons - Becomes joint family property - Reconveyance of the property after sale - Remained joint family property - Created right of inheritance of grandchildren of the propositus of the family. (Para 22)
(1983) 3 SCC 376 - Relied upon
(b) Property law - Compromise regarding joint family property by sons of the propositus of the family without knowledge of the grandchildren of propositus of the family - Does not bind them ovr their share of the property. (Para 24, 25)
(c) Property law - On reconveyance and delivery of possession after execution decree property stood restored - Mere filing of an Execution Appeal would not take away the efficacy of the conveyance decree. (Para 27)
(d) Property law - 10 co-sharers in the property - Three sharers selling the property - In execution appeal the three sharers entering into compromise - Held, the comprise will bind only the shares of the sharers entering into compromise and the shares of others who were not parties to the compromise. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
Shri Chikkanna (since deceased), the propositus of the joint family, had three sons, namely, Pillappa, Venkataramanappa and Muniyappa (respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9). Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and respondent no. 10 are the sons of Pillappa (defendant no. 2) and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of Shri Venkataramanappa (defendant no. 3).
The above named propositus of the joint family Chikkanna purchased the suit schedule property from his sister Thayamma.
The appeal has been preferred by appellant (defendant no. 1) who is a purchaser of the subject property involved in the suit. Respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4), sons of late Chikkanna had jointly sold the suit property in favour of one Muthappa under a sale deed. It was stipulated in the sale deed that in the event of the sale of the suit property by the above named Muthappa, the suit property shall be reconveyed in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) at the price offered by the purchaser and on failure of the respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4), the above named Muthappa would be free to sell the suit property to any other purchaser. The property was later purchased under the sale deed by one Muniswamy @ Annaiyappa from whom the appellant purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed.
Respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4), sons of Chikkanna filed a suit against the appellant (defendant no. 1) including other defendants seeking decree of reconveyance of the property in terms of the clause of reconveyance against the appellant and directing the defendants to execute reconveyance deed in their favour in respect of the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
Respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) filed Regular Appeal which was allowed. Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellant (defendant no. 1) was dismissed.
In sequel to the Order passed in the execution petition, the reconveyance deed was executed by the Court in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to4) and possession of the suit property was handed over to respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) by the Court.
The appellant (defendant no. 1) filed Execution Appeal in which respondent nos. 1 to 6 and 10 (original plaintiffs) were not made parties. Respondent no. 9 (defendant no. 4) with the knowledge of respondent nos. 7 and 8 (defendant nos. 2 and 3) entered into a compromise with the appellant for which consent of respondent nos. 1 to 6 and 10 (original plaintiffs) was not taken.
On attaining majority, respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 jointly filed a suit arraying the appellant (defendant no. 1) and respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) for declaration that the said compromise decree was not binding on them and for permanent injunction contending inter alia that the said compromise had been entered into without their knowledge and consent of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10(plaintiffs), and respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) having no right whatsoever to enter into compromise and the said compromise had no legal sanctity which was entered into between them without their consent and knowledge and it did not bind them and, therefore, they were entitled for their right in the suit property being a joint family property.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
The High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly held that the property was a joint family property and respondents 1 to 6 and 10 were not bound by the compromise entered into by respondent s no. 7 to 9.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - On the father dying, the property devolving on his sons becomes joint family property (!) (!) . - A compromise entered into by some sons without the knowledge or consent of other grandchildren does not bind the rights of those other grandchildren (!) (!) . - After execution of a reconveyance deed and restoration of possession, the property reassumes its character as joint family property (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Ajay Rastogi, J.
The present appeal arises out of the suit filed at the instance of respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 for declaration that the compromise dated 25th March, 1976 entered into between the appellant (defendant no. 1) on one hand and respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9(original defendant nos. 2, 3 & 4) in Execution Appeal No. 2 of 1974 did not bind the rights of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction which was acceded to by the High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 611 of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2005.
2. The facts in brief culled out and relevant for the present purpose which manifest from the record that Shri Chikkanna (since deceased) was the propositus of the joint family. He had three sons, namely, Pillappa, Venkataramanappa and Muniyappa (respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9). Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and respondent no. 10 are the sons of Pillappa (defendant no. 2) and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of Shri Venkataramanappa (defendant no. 3).
3. The above named propositus of the joint family Chikkanna purchased the suit schedule property from his sister Thayamma. The genealogy of the family of the respondents (plaintiffs) is as under: -
Chikkanna (Propositus)
Pillappa (Def. 2)
Venkataramanappa
(Def. 3)
Muniyappa
(Def. 4)
Govindaraja (Plff. 6)
Venkatesha
(Plff. 7)
Chikkanna (Plff. No.1)
Muniswamy (Plff. 2)
Ramachandra (Plff. 3)
Srinivasa (Plff. 4)
Nagraja (Plff. 5)
4. It could be seen from the genealogy that respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 are the grandsons of propositus Chikkanna (deceased). The appeal has been preferred by appellant (defendant no. 1) who is a purchaser of the subject property involved in the suit. Respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4), sons of late Chikkanna had jointly sold the suit property in favour of one Muthappa under a sale deed dated 2 nd December, 1950. It was stipulated in the sale deed that in the event of the sale of the suit property by the above named Muthappa, the suit property shall be reconveyance in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) at the price offered by the purchaser and on failure of the respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4), the above named Muthappa would be free to sell the suit property to any other purchaser. The property was later purchased under the sale deed dated 30th September, 1954 by one Muniswamy @ Annaiyappa from whom the appellant purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 29th January, 1962.
5. Respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4), sons of Chikkanna filed a suit on 27th June, 1964 bearing no. O.S. No. 297 of 1964 against the appellant(defendant no. 1) including other defendants seeking decree of reconveyance of the property in terms of the clause of reconveyance against the appellant and directing the defendants to execute reconveyance deed in their favour in respect of the suit property which came to be dismissed by the trial Court.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) filed Regular Appeal No. 128 of 1967 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1969 that came to be challenged by the appellant(defendant no. 1) in a Regular Second Appeal No. 69 of 1970 which came to be dismissed and thus the decree became final.
7. The matter thereafter proceeded for execution of the decree in Execution No. 121 of 1972 and in sequel to the Order passed in the execution petition, the reconveyance deed was executed by the Court in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to4) and possession of the suit property was handed over to respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) by the Court under delivery receipt dated 7th March, 1974(Exhibit P-6).
8. The
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
