The death of a karta does not amount to a partition of the joint Hindu family property, and the karta cannot represent the interest of female relatives or male relatives claiming through female relatives specified in Class 1 of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is plaintiffs appeal, whose suit for recovery of an amount under a sarkat note has been dismissed by the two Courts below.

2. So far as this appeal is concerned, no dispute on facts survives for consideration. Certain findings have been given by the two Courts below which are normally binding on this Court, Even otherwise, they appear to be in consonance with the facts and circumstances and do not require to be reconsidered. The position of facts that appears to be proved and which could be taken as a basis for the decision of this second appeal is this: Mithamal, the father of the plaintiff, as a karta of the joint Hindu family, advanced a loan to the defendant on 19-6-1950 under a sarkat note. The loan was renewed br acknowledged by another earkat note, dated 9-6-1953, There was a third sarkat note, dated 9-6-1956. After their renewal Mithamal died in or about February 1958. The plaintiff, who is the eldest son of Mithamal, has filed the present suit on 15-6-1959 for recovery of the amount due under the sarkat note. The plaintiff has claimed the principal amount under the sarkat note together with interest.

3. Several defences were raised. The defendant pleaded that he was not paid any amount at alii Alternatively, it was pleaded that Mithamal never advanced the amount as a karta of the joint Hindu family. It was his personal transaction and the suit by the plaintiff alone is not valid. Mithamal left behind, among other heirs, two married daughters. Without Joining them as parties, the suit was not a properly representative suit and must fail. Yet another defence was that the sarkat note was an acknowledgment within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. As the subsequent acknowledgment notes do not bear any stamp, they are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. In that event the suit on the original cause of action would be barred by limitation. It was also pointed out that the advance was in the nature of money-lending transaction and the plaintiff or his father not having had any licence under the Moneylenders Act the suit ought to be dismissed.

4. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court gave concurrent findings on some of the points and differing ones on some others. Bom Courts held that the defence of non-payment had no substance and the consideration of the document had been proved. They also held concurrently that Mithamal and the plaintiff formed a joint Hindu family, and the money advanced belonged to the joint family. It was, therefore, a transaction of the joint family. The Trial Court held that the transaction was a money-lending transaction, whereas the Appellate Court neld that this was a single transaction of the plaintiffs family and could not be described as a moneyleuding transaction. However, both Courts unanimously held that the sarkat notes of 1953 and 1956 were in the nature of acknowledgments within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, and in the absence of proper stamp, they were not admissible in evidence at all. Both of them further held that, by the death of Mithamal, the principle of representation of the joint family property by its karta was not available to the present plaintiff. Mithamal is survived by two married daughters who are female relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act as laid down by the proviso to Section 6 and, as such, the interest of the deceased Mithamal in the joint Hindu family property partly devolved on them by succession, The plaintiff could not represent his sisters as their interest could not be described as joint family property. By the principle of Section 45 of the Contract Act, the suit by the plaintiff alone is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. With these findings, both the Courts below dismissed the suit. Plaintiff, being aggrieved has filed this second appeal.

5. For the purpose of this appeal, I may point out that the finding of the Appellate Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document