S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI
K. C. Laxmana – Appellant
Versus
K. C. Chandrappa Gowda – Respondent
What is the effect of alienation of joint family property without consent of all coparceners? What is the meaning of ‘pious purpose’ in the context of gifts of ancestral property under Hindu law? What is the applicable limitation period for challenging a gift/settlement of joint family property under Article 109 of the Limitation Act?
Key Points: - The suit challenged a settlement/gift deed dated 22.03.1980 affecting joint family property and whether it is void/voidable due to lack of coparcener consent (!) (!) . - Alienation without the consent of all coparceners is voidable at the instance of the coparcener whose consent is not obtained (!) . - A gift deed of ancestral property "out of love and affection" is not for a pious purpose, and thus not permissible under Section 122 Transfer of Property Act for HUFs; such gifts are not valid (!) (!) (!) . - For limitation, Article 109 of the Limitation Act applies to setting aside a father’s alienation of ancestral property; period is twelve years from the date the alienee takes possession (!) (!) . - The first appellate court and High Court held the settlement/gift deed to be null and void; appeal dismissed (!) (!) . - The case falls under Hindu Mitakshara law; Karta may alienate only for legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate, or with consent of all coparceners (!) (!) . - The suit was filed within twelve-year limitation from possession, not barred by time (!) . - Gift to a stranger of joint family property by the manager is void; manager cannot dispose beyond strict limits (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree in Regular Second Appeal No.372 of 2003 dated 03.10.2008, whereby the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore has dismissed the appeal.
2. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda filed a suit against his father-K.S. Chinne Gowda and one K.C. Laxmana for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in the suit-schedule property and for a declaration that the gift/settlement deed dated 22.03.1980 (Ex. P1) executed by the first defendant-K.S. Chinne Gowda in favour of the second defendant-K.C. Laxmana as null and void. According to the plaintiff, the schedule property belongs to the joint family consisting of himself, the first defendant and one K.C. Subraya Gowda. It was further contended that the first defendant had no right to transfer the schedule property in favour of the second defendant as he is not a coparcener or a member of their family. Consequently, it was contended that the alienation made without the plaintiff’s consent is null and void and thus not binding on him.
3. The fi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.