A manager of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, including the interest obtained by a widow upon her husband's death, in it.

Headnote:
HINDU LAW - JOINT FAMILY - ALIENATION - MANAGER'S POWER - WIDOW'S INTEREST - HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937 - SECTION 3(2) - A manager of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, including the interest obtained by a widow upon her husband's death, in it.
Fact of the Case:

Shripati, the manager of a joint Hindu family, sold the family properties to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 700, out of which Rs. 500 were required to pay off earlier debts and expenses of treatment, and the remaining Rs. 200 may have been used to make an advance upon a mortgage. The plaintiff, Gajara, the widow of Shankar, who died before Shripati, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the lands conveyed by Shripati to defendant No. 1. The appellate Judge found that the sale was justified by legal necessity and that defendant No. 1 had made bona fide inquiries and satisfied himself as to the existence of the necessity.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the manager had the power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, including the interest obtained by a widow upon her husband's death, in it. The court also found that the sale was justified by legal necessity and that defendant No. 1 had made bona fide inquiries and satisfied himself as to the existence of the necessity.
Issues: 1. Whether a manager of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, including the interest obtained by a widow upon her husband's death, in it? 2. Whether the sale of the family properties by Shripati was justified by legal necessity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the manager of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, including the interest obtained by a widow upon her husband's death, in it. The court reasoned that the joint family continues until the widow asks for a partition, and that the manager's authority must necessarily extend over the whole joint family property, including the widow's interest therein. 2. The court held that the sale of the family properties by Shripati was justified by legal necessity. The court found that out of the consideration of Rs. 700, Rs. 500 were required to pay off earlier debts and expenses of treatment, and that the remaining Rs. 200 may have been used to make an advance upon a mortgage. The court also found that defendant No. 1 had made bona fide inquiries and satisfied himself as to the existence of the necessity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

JUDGMENT - Bavdekar, J.

1. The property in the suit, from which the present appeal arises, originally belonged to a joint family consisting of two brothers, Shripati and Shankar. Shankar died first leaving a widow Gajara, who was the plaintiff in the suit. On 11-5-1945, Shripati executed a sale deed of all the properties of the joint family in favour of defendant No. 1 for Rs. 700, and the properties are since then in the possession of defendant No. 1. Shripati died in September 1945.

On 28-8-1947, the plaintiff gave a notice to defendant No. 1, and then she instituted the present suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the lands, which were conveyed by Shripati to defendant No. 1. The defence was that Shripati was suffering from T. B.; that he had already incurred debts, because he had to undergo heavy expenses for his treatment in the Wai hospital, and that he had also further necessity of moneys for his treatment. It was the case of defendant No. 1 besides that in any case he had made inquiries and had satisfied himself-as to the existence of the necessity, and the inquiries being bona fide, he was protected.

2. The learned appellate Judge has found upon this contention that out of the consideration of Rs. 700, Rs. 500 were required by Shripati to pay off his earlier debts and also for the expenses of treatment to be undergone thereafter. He held that so far as Rs. 200 are concerned the matter was doubtful, and it may be that they were borrowed by Shripati in order to make an advance upon a mortgage to one Khashaba. He said, however, that the amount was not very big, and the sale was, therefore, justified by legal necessity. In the alternative, he said that defendant No. 1 had made inquiries and satisfied himself as to the existence of the necessity, and the alienation could not, therefore, be challenged in any case by the plaintiff.

3. Now, in second appeal these findings of fact are binding upon us. It is true that so far as the amount of Rs. 200 advanced to Khashaba is concerned, the learned trial Judge was inclined to think that it may be that Shripati paid this amount out of the amount realised by the sale of the family properties to defendant No. 1 after the sale. But even so, there is a further finding that in any case defendant No. 1 had made bona fide inquiries with regard to the existence of the necessity and satisfied himself as to it.

4. The only question, therefore, is whether Shripati, who was admittedly the manager at, the time of the joint family, had got power to alienate for legal necessity family properties. That he would have had such right, if it had not been for the fact that upon the death of Shankar on 11-6-1941, Gajara obtained an interest in the property, which was commensurate with Shankars "interest, is not in dispute. It is contended, however, on behalf of the plaintiff that it was not competent to Shripati, after the enactment of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, to alienate even for legal necessity the properties of the family.

The power which Shripati had got, as manager of the joint family, to alienate for legal necessity family properties was derived by him from his position as the manager of a coparcenary. When Shankar died in 1941 and Gajara obtained, because of Section 3(2), Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, his interest, she had not become a coparcener along with Shripati. She had, therefore, an interest in the property, which could not be equated with the interest of a coparcener, and Shripati could not sell the property, in which she had such an interest, in exercise of powers, which must be referred to the powers of a manager in respect of coparcenary property.

5. Now, Section 3, Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, has been the subject-matter of a number of cases, which have come up before the High Courts. There has been some difference of opinion about its interpretation; but so far as this High Court is concerned, the following proposit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document