IMPORTANT POINT
A Karta of a joint family can validly alienate property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, binding all coparceners.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 27.04.1998, in O.S. No.5 of 1992 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

The learned counsel for appellant filed a memo on 14.08.2024 stating that the first defendant being the father of appellant died on 04.02.2001. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is the only legal heir to his father i.e., the first defendant, the appellant is on record in the appeal itself.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit for partition and separate possession of item Nos.1 to 4 of plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.5 of 1992, are as under:

The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and he has been practicing as a Doctor in Louisa, Kentucky in U.S.A. from several years, the plaintiff schedule property and several other properties situated in Ongole are the ancestral properties belonging to the plaintiff and his father i.e., first defendant herein. Thus, they are joint family properties possessed and owned by the family in which the plaintiff is having half share by birth. The plaintiff demanded the first defendant orally and through letters, demanding for a partition unequivocally expressing his intention to separate. The plaintiff also requested the first defendant whenever he came down to Ongole from America not to alienate the schedule property stating that it is required for construction of a clinic and for his professional living as he intended to re-settle at Ongole so as to make his expert medical services available at Ongole so as to make his countrymen with upto date medical equipment.

ii) On 12.10.1991, the plaintiff came down to Ongole from states and came to know that the first defendant sold the schedule property to the defendants 2 to 7 without taking cognizance of the previous demand made by the plaintiff for partition and the useful nature of the schedule property for his professional living at Ongole.

iii) As the plaintiff stay in Ongole was only for a limited period, he issued a lawyer’s notice through his advocate to all the defendants demanding for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares according to its good and bad qualities and for allotting one such share to him. As the defendants did not co-operate for amicable partition, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement by admitting the relationship with the appellant and also by admitting the alienation of the properties covered under Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 to the respondents 2 to 7 herein and he specifically pleaded that with a bonafide belief that the plaintiff will agree to the alienation that he entered into an agreement and with the same belief the other defendants agreed to purchase the same.

6. The second defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 3 and 4, by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The first defendant is responsible for filing the suit. The contention of the plaintiff is that the first defendant got returned the notice with false postal endorsement itself is positive that the first defendant is behind this litigation. The first defendant, who is an addict in litigation and Court affairs got filed the suit through plaintiff making false and desperate allegations in order to harass the other defendants. First defendant himself filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 199