2021 Supreme(SC) 972

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
M.R. Vinoda – Appellant
Versus
M.S. Susheelamma (D) By Lrs. And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2017
Decided on : 13-12-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Karta may alienate joint family property for value, either for legal necessity or for benefit of estate, to bind interests of all undivided members of family, whether they are adults or minors or widows.
(2) Question of a transaction being void or validity of relinquishment, much depends on facts – Nature of transaction is required to be determined based on substance and not nomenclature of deed.
(3) A coparcener cannot seek an injunction restraining Karta from alienating joint Hindu family property, but has a right to challenge alienation.

Headnote:

(A) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Sections 6, 8 and 12 – Rights of Karta to alienate coparcenary property – Section 8 of HMG Act that requires a guardian of a Hindu minor to seek permission of Court before he disposes of any immovable property of minor will have no application when a Karta or adult head of family alienates joint Hindu property even if one or more coparceners are minor – Karta of a joint Hindu family can dispose of joint family property involving undivided interest of minor of family therein. (Paras 12 and 13)

(B) Hindu Law – Coparcenary Property – Alienation of – A coparcener cannot seek an injunction restraining Karta from alienating joint Hindu family property, but has a right to challenge alienation, as alienation is not beyond scope of challenge by other members of joint family, and thereby scrutiny of Court – Latter right entails the right to claim a share in joint family estate free from unnecessary and unwanted encumbrances, whereas former embraces right to interfere with act of management of joint family affairs. (Para 13)

(C) Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – A Hindu family may have different branches within it – From perspective of Hindu Law, such branches of a family are separate bodies, with eldest of that branch representing it within a larger joint Hindu family – Father and in absence of father eldest member of branch is entitled to act as Karta and in that capacity represent branch – Father or eldest member is Karta of a branch of smaller joint family within larger joint Hindu family, such branch being subordinate or separate unit within larger body. (Para 14)

(D) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8 – Right of Karta to alienate Coparcenary Property – Karta may alienate joint family property for value, either for legal necessity or for benefit of estate, to bind interests of all undivided members of family, whether they are adults or minors or widows – There are no specific grounds to prove existence of legal necessity and it must depend on facts of each case – Karta has wide discretion in decision over existence of legal necessity and as to in what way such legal necessity can be fulfilled – However, this exercise of power and rights by Karta is not beyond challenge on limited ground of lack of existence of legal necessity or absence of benefit to the estate. (Para 20)

(E) Property Law – Coparcenary Property – Relinquishment of share – Question of a transaction being void or validity of relinquishment, much depends on facts – It is an inquiry into determination of relevant facts bought onto record for perusal of Court – Nature of transaction is required to be determined based on substance and not nomenclature of deed – Documents are to be construed having regard to context thereof whereof labels given to them will not be of much relevance. (Para 29)

Facts of the case:

Plaint states that t Plaintiff No. 4 being minor on 13th March 1969, their eldest brother M.R. Rajashekar, fourth defendant, had no right to relinquish their shares.1 The relinquishment deed dated 13th March 1969, Exhibit P-2, being void, the property remained the joint Hindu family property and should be partitioned equally amongst them. The suit was resisted by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 primarily on ground that the relinquishment deed is valid and the suit is barred by limitation.

Findings of Court:

Suit would be barred under Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act as it had been filed post three years from the date the right to sue first accrued as per Article 58 and when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs as per Article 59. High Court rightly rejected the specious and untrue plea of the plaintiffs that till two months before the filing of the suit, they were unaware and did not know about execution of relinquishment deed by their elder brother, the fourth defendant.

Result : Appeal dismissed.