Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 1589

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal, Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
K. Devabalan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
M. Vijayakumari & Ors. - Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).18532/2003 (From the judgement and order dated 17/07/2003 in AFA No. 66/1990 of The High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam)
Decided On : 08-03-2006

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv., Mr. M.T. George, Adv., Ms. E.R. Sumathy, adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.P. Vinod, Adv. , Mr. P. Sajith, adv.

The court upheld the validity of a gift of joint family property for a daughter's marriage, but set aside the High Court's decision on the invalidity of the marriage, as it was not in dispute between the parties.

Headnote:
Gift - Joint Family Property - Validity of Marriage - Reasonable Portion for Marriage
Fact of the Case:

Karunakaran Nadar gifted property to his daughter, which was challenged by his sons. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court remanded it for re-decision. The High Court upheld the trial court's decree, negating the challenge to the gift on the grounds of joint family property and validity of marriage.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court's decision was affirmed on the second ground of the property being a reasonable portion of the joint family property given for the daughter's marriage. However, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in holding the marriage invalid, as it was not in dispute between the parties.
Issues: Validity of the gift challenged on the grounds of joint family property and validity of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's decision was upheld on the second ground of the property being a reasonable portion of the joint family property given for the daughter's marriage. However, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in holding the marriage invalid, as it was not in dispute between the parties.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of accordingly, setting aside the High Court's decision on the invalidity of the marriage but affirming it on the second ground of the property being a reasonable portion of the joint family property given for the daughter's marriage.

ORDER :

1. One Karunakaran Nadar had married a Christian lady Maria Augustine in 1955. He had two daughters and several sons. In 1975 he gifted particular property to the defendant No.1, his daughter. The validity of the gift was challenged by the appellants who are the sons of Karunakaran and Maria by filing a suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The matter was carried in appeal by the appellants. The First Appellate Court remanded the suit for re-decision. Challenging the order of remand the matter was carried by the respondents before the High Court. The High Court upheld the decree of the trial court. The submission of the appellants that the father, namely, Karunakaran Nadar was incompetent to execute the deed in respect of the property in question because it was joint family property was negatived on two grounds. The first ground was that the marriage between Karunakaran Nadar and Maria Augustine was not valid and therefore the children born of that marriage did not form members of a joint family as per Hindu law. The second ground was that even on the basis that it was joint family property, it was held that the property gifted given at the time of marriage was within the permissible limits of the law and was a reasonable portion of the joint family property given for the marriage of the daughter.

2. As far as second ground is concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. However, as for as the first ground is concerned, the validity of the marriage of Karunakaran Nadar and his wife Maria Augustine was never in dispute between the parties. The issue not having been raised, the High Court entirely exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the marriage was invalid. That part of the order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. However, the second reasoning of the High Court is upheld. The High Courts decision is affirmed on the second ground alone. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document