Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
K.C. Laxmana - Appellant
Versus
K.C. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2582 of 2010
Decided on : 19-04-2022
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 109 – Hindu Joint Family Property – Alienation of – Challenge as to – Settlement deed/gift deed was executed by father of plaintiff in favour of second defendant on 02.03.1980 and second defendant has taken possession of property on 22.03.1980 when Settlement deed/gift deed was registered – Counting period of twelve years from 22.03.1980, limitation for filing of suit in present case would have expired on 21.03.1992 – Suit was filed on 11.10.1991 – Therefore, suit was not barred by time. (Para 10)
(B) Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Alienation of – Challenge as to – Where alienation is not made with consent of all coparceners, it is voidable at instance of coparceners whose consent has not been obtained – Alienation of joint family property in favour of second defendant was voidable at instance of plaintiff whose consent had not been obtained as a coparcener before the alienation. (Para 12)
(C) Hindu Law – Gift – Joint Family Property – [Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122] – Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ – What is understood by term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose – A deed of gift in regard to ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within scope of term ‘pious purpose’ – It is irrelevant if such gift or settlement was made by a donor, i.e., first defendant, in favour of a donee who was raised by donor without any relationship, i.e. second defendant – Gift deed in instant case is not for any charitable or religious purpose – Settlement deed/gift deed executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant was rightly declared as null and void by first Appellate Court and High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present 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.
Findings of Court:
Settlement deed/gift deed dated 22.03.1980 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was rightly declared as null and void by the first Appellate Court and the High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
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 first defendant opposed the suit by filing his written statement. It was admitted that the suit schedule property is a joint family property. It was contended that the second defendant was brought up by the first defendant and out of love and affection he settled the suit property under Ex.P1 in favour of the second defendant. It was further contended that the joint family property was already partitioned between himself, the plaintiff and the other son Subbraya Gowda on 23.03.1990. The plaintiff, having taken his share without any demur is not entitled to maintain the suit. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The second defendant had adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions and have produced the documents thereof. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a first appeal. The Appellate Court, after reconsideration of the entire materials on record and reassessment of evidence, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. It was held that the Settlement Deed at Exhibit P1 is a void document. The plaintiff was granted one-third share in the suit property. This judgment of the Appellate Court was challenged by K.C. Laxmana, the second defendant in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by the impugned order.
5. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second defendant, first contended that the High Court was not justified in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. According to him, Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the facts of the present case. Secondly, it was argued that the transfer of property by way of settlement was for pious purpose which is permissible in law. Therefore, he submitted that the High Court was not justified in upholding the judgment of the Appellate Court.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Varma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, while supporting the judgment of the High Court, has submitted that the alienation by way of gift of joint family property made by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was void. The period of limitation for challenging such an alienation is twelve years from the date the alienee takes possession of the property under Article 109 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, he submitted that the suit was not barred by time.
7. Having regard to the contentions urged, the first question for consideration is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation.
There is no dispute that t
(1) Alienation of joint family property – Where alienation is not made with consent of all coparceners, it is voidable at instance of coparceners whose consent has not been obtained.(2) A deed of gif....
A Kartha of a Hindu joint family cannot gift joint family property without the consent of other coparceners, as such gifts are void.
A Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family cannot gift joint family property without the consent of other coparceners, rendering such a Gift Deed invalid.
The validity of a gift of ancestral property under Mitakshara Hindu Law can be voidable if made without consent from all coparceners, and challenges to such gifts may be barred by limitation.
![N. Kalavathy VS Sriramulu Naidu [deceased] - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1817](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_2.png)
The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a sale deed executed by the family manager, the entitlement of daughters to ancestral property under the Amended Hindu Succes....
A coparcener cannot execute a settlement deed favoring non-coparceners without consent, rendering it void; however, a sale executed by the Kartha for family necessity is valid and binding on minor co....
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
