1976 Supreme(Kar) 42
Karnataka High Court
Judges : D.B.Lal
CHIKKATHARMAIAH - Appellant
Versus
CHIKKAHUTCHIAH - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 03/05/1976
Advocates Appeared :
K.MALLEGOWDA, M.S.GOPAL, PADUBIDRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO
Plaintiffs must seek cancellation of sale deed to maintain suit for joint family property.
Headnote:
Cancellation of Sale Deed - Joint Family Property - Plaintiffs must seek cancellation of sale deed to maintain suit
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, sons of Chikkegowda, filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction relating to a house site, claiming that the property was joint family property and the sale deed of 1954 was obtained by undue influence and fraud.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable unless the plaintiffs sought relief for cancellation of the sale deed of 1954, as Chikkegowda could alienate the property for legal necessity and in exercise of his power of management as 'kartha' of the family.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was maintainable without seeking cancellation of the sale deed of 1954.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles stating that unless the sale deed of 1954 is cancelled, the plaintiffs cannot get the relief, as Chikkegowda could always alienate his share in the property and the other members of the family could claim a partition from the purchaser.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order of the learned Munsiff, and no costs were awarded.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for h respondents rightly contended that under the very allegations made in the plaint, the property was ancestral and the plaintiffs claimed title from their father chikkegowda with whom they constituted a joint Hindu family, Chikkegowda being the father of the plaintiffs could alienate the property for legal necessity and in exercise of his power of management as 'kartha' of the family. Unless the sale deed is not sought to be cancelled by the plaintiffs they can only get whatever share could be assigned to them in 1954 as a partition between the father and the sons. Chikkegowda could always alienate his share in the property and the other members of the family could claim a partition from the purchaser. In the face of this legal position, the argument, of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiffs not being a party to the sale deed need not ask for cancellation of that sale deed, does not appear to be correct. Until and unless the sale deed of 1954 is cancelled, the plaintiffs cannot get the relief. In other words, the plaintiffs cannot ignore the sale deed and must seek for cancellation of that sale deed. Otherwise, the suit may not be maintainable.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel relied on In Re Thirupathiammal (AIR 1956 Mad 179 ). But in that case, the son executed the sale deed and the father was not a party. It is evident the father was not claiming title through the son and so it was held that the father need not have asked for the cancellation of the sale deed. The ratio of that case is therefore not applicable. The other case relied upon by the petitioners is in re: Sathappa Chettiar, AIR1954 Mad 1126. In that suit a compromise decree was obtained and the father was a party to that decree while the sons were not a party. In a subsequent civil suit the compromise decree was not sought to be set aside and a plea was taken that unless that relief was asked for, the suit will not be maintainable. It was held that the sons were not parties to the compromise decree and therefore they need not have asked for the cancellation of the decree. That case was again based on entirely a different footing. It was not a case of joint Hindu family property and the sons were not basing their title being members of the joint Hindu family. With respects to the learned Judges, I am of the opinion that the ratio of that case also will not be helpful to the petitioners.
( 4 ) I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the learned Munsiff was correct. No interferenc