A decree obtained against the manager of a joint family as representing the family for a debt contracted by him for family necessities or for the family business or in respect of a family property, operates as res judicata under the Code of Civil procedure, Sec. 11 Explanation 6, and is binding upon all members of the family including minors, and it may be executed against the whole coparcenary property, although the other members were not parties to the suit.

P. KODDANDA RAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THE first defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The suit is filed for a declaration that the alienation made by the second defendant father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 of an extent of Acs. 8-06 cents in favour of the first defendant is not valid and binding on them and the decree obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant is null and void and liable to be set aside and also for possession of the property.

( 2 ) THE first defendant raised the plea that the property alienated by the second defendant is self acquired property and the decree obtained against him is valid and binding on the plaintiffs and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE trial Court on the relevant issues found that the suit property is ancestral property and the agreement executed by the second defendant on 2-5-1964 is not binding and also the decree obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant and consequently decreed the suit to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit land holding that the decree is not binding and liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said judgment and decree the above appeal is filed.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant Sri M. B. Rama Sarma raised two contentions before me:1) The finding that the property in question is ancestral property is incorrect. 2) Even assuming that the property is ancestral property the decree obtained against the father cannot be set aside, as it is obtained against him in his capacity as manager, in the absence of fraud or collusion.

( 6 ) I shall take up the first question, ex. B-1 was signed by defendant no. 2 and also one of his sons Koteshwar rao and also his wife Subbamma and one of his relatives V. Venkata Ramaiah. The plaintiff adduced the evidence to show that this property was purchased out of the funds obtained by the sale of admitted ancestral property under Exs. X-1 to x-3 dated 19-8-1950, 17-2-57 and 25-6-1958 respectively. The sale deeds were proved by P. Ws. 1 to 5. The evidence discloses that the property covered by Exs. X-1 to X-3 are joint properties of D-2 and his brothers and they were sold jointly for purpose of purchasing the property elsewhere.

( 7 ) THE comment of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Exs. X-2 and x-3 were dt. 17-2-1957 and 25-6-1958 and the money obtained by those two sale deeds could not be utilised for purchasing the suit property as the suit property was said to have been purchased on 20th may, 1955. The suit property is only Ac. 8-06 cents being part of large extent of acs. 18-06 cents purchased by defendant no. 2 for a sum of Rs. 3750/ -. The sale consideration under Ex. X-1 is Rs. 4500/- it is significant to note that no cash consideration was paid on that date. But a promissory note was executed. It might be that the purchaser might have paid the consideration subsequent to 19-8-1950 before the purchase of the suit land on 20th May, 1955 by the second defendant. Though the other sale deeds Exs. X-2 and x-3 were of the years 1957 and 1958, it was said the fund under those sale deeds were utilised for improving the land and hence there is no improbability of using the funds under Exs. X-1, X-2 and X-3 for purchasing the suit land and other lands on 20-5-1955 and the defendant no. 2 utilised the funds both for purchase and improving those lands. The evidence of P Ws. 2, 3 and 5 also support that the property covered under Ex. X-1 are joint properties of defendant No. 2 and his brother and the recitals also clearly support the plea of the plaintiff. The court below accepted the evidence of P W 7, in my view very rightly, and held that the suit land was purchased with the funds obtained by the sale of the ancestral property and hence I have no hesitation to accept the finding of the trial Court that the Property covered by ex. B-1 is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 and the plea set up by the first defendant that the property is the self acqu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document