A coparcener may sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate for value his undivided interest in the copercenery property without the consent of the other coparceners.

Headnote:
HINDU LAW - JOINT FAMILY - MANAGER - ALIENATION - LEGAL NECESSITY - CONSENT OF COPARCENERS - DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - EFFECT - AFTER-BORN SON - RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ALIENATION.
Fact of the Case:

The suit house was owned by Dattatraya Pandurang Vaidya as ancestral property. Dattatraya died in 1963, leaving behind his widow Indirabai, plaintiff no. 1, his son Vijaya, defendant no. 1, and his wife Mamta, plaintiff no. 2. The plaintiffs 3(a) and (b) are the daughters and plaintiff no. 3(c) is the son Ketan of defendant no. 1 Vijaya and his wife Mamta. Ketan was born on 7-4-1970. The defendant no. 1 on 31-1-1969 executed a document of agreement of sale in respect of the suit house in favor of defendant no. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 15000/-, out of which, it is mentioned therein that RS. 7,500/-were paid as earnest money. As the defendant no. 1 failed to execute the sale-deed as per the agreement of sale dated 31-1-1969, the defendant no. 2 instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 1969 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur against the defendant no. 1 for specific performance of the agreement. The suit was resisted by the defendant no. 1 on the ground that he obtained a loan of Rs. 5,000/-from the defendant no. 1 and the document dated 31-1-1969 was executed by way of security for repayment of the loan. The defense raised by the defendant no. 1 in that suit was negatived and the suit was decreed. The original defendant in that suit i.e. Vijaya preferred First Appeal No. 91 of 1971 in this Court. That appeal was dismissed on 26-3-1981.
Finding of the Court:

1. The plaintiff no. 1 Indirabai was not the manager of the joint Hindu family. 2. The defendant no. 1 Vijay was the Karta or manager of the family of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 and as such he was competent to alienate the suit property for legal necessity. 3. The defendant no. 2 failed to prove that there was any legal necessity for the sale of the suit property. 4. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 expressly or impliedly consented to the agreement of sale dated 31.1.1969 in respect of the suit house. 5. The present suit was not tenable in view of the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale passed against the defendant no. 1, who was manager of the joint family.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff no. 1 Indirnhai wife of Dattatraya Vaidya was manager of the joint family consisting of the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 ? 2. Whether the transaction evidenced by Agreement of sale dated 31.1.1969 was . a loan transaction ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 expressly or impliedly consented to the . agreement of sale dated 31.1.1969 in respect of the suit house ? 4. Whether there was legal necessity or benefit to the estate justifying the sale of the suit property by the defendant no. 1 ? 5. Whether the present suit was not tenable in view of the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale passed against the defendant no. 1, who was manager of the joint family ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A widow is not a coparcener and as such she has no legal qualification to become a manager of the joint Hindu family. 2. The transaction evidenced by the agreement of sale dated 31.1.1969 was not a loan transaction but it was a transaction of agreement for sale. 3. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 neither expressly nor impliedly consented to the agreement for sale of the suit house and on that ground they are not stopped from challenging the said agreement of sale. 4. There was no legal necessity for the sale of the suit house by the defendant no. 1. 5. The present suit was tenable in view of the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale passed against the defendant no. 1, who was manager of the joint family.
Final Decision: Both the appeals and cross-objections fail. They are hereby dismissed. As appeals by both the rival parties fail, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - Tated A.D. J.-The original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 165 of 1971 decided by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur by his judgment and decree dated 10-8-1973 preferred First Appeal No. 29 of 1974. The original defendant no. 2 preferred First Appeal No. 35 of 1974 against the same judgment and decree. The defendant no. 1 filed cross-objections. Both the appeals and cross-objections are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The following facts are not disputed before me. The suit house bearing No. 10 (new 04) situated at Ward No. 26(New) of Kelibag Road, Mahal, Nagpur was owned by Dattatraya Pandurang Vaidya having inherited it from his father. Dattatraya died in the, year 1963, leaving behind him, his widow Indirabai, plaintiff no. 1 and his sen Vijaya, defendent no. 1 and his wife Mamta, plaintiff no. 2. The plaintiffs 3(a) and (b) are the daughters and plaintiff no. 3(c) is the son Ketan of defendant no. 1 Vijaya and his wife Mamta. Ketan was born on 7-4-1970. The defendant no. 1 on 31-1-1969 executed a document of agreement of sale in respect of the suit house in favour of defendant no. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 15000/-, out of which, it is mentioned therein that RS. 7,500/-were paid as earnest money. As the defendant no. 1 failed to execute the sale-deed as per the agreement of sale dated 31-1-1969, the defendant no. 2 instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 1969 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur against the defendant no. 1 for specific performance of the agreement. The suit was resisted by the defendent no. 1 on the ground that he obtained a loan of Rs. 5,000/-from the defendant no. 1 and the document dated 31-1-1969 was executed by way of security for repayment of the loan. The defence raised by the defendant no. 1 in that suit was negatived and the suit was decreed. The original defendant in that suit i.e. Vijaya preferred First Appeal No. 91 of 1971 in this Court. That appeal was dismissed on 26-3-1981. 198!. After the Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 1969 was decreed, the appellants in First Appeal No. 29 of 1974 on 30-4-1971 instituted Special Civil Suit No. 465 of 1971.

3. The case of the appellants, who were plaintiffs, was that the suit house was the ancestral property in the hands of Dattatraya and on the death of Dattatraya in the year 1963 the plaintiffs and the defendant became the owners thereof. They averred that on .the death of Dattatraya the widow Indiraba (plalntiffno. 1) was in possession of the ancestral property left by Dattatraya and she was managing the property. She avers that she was the manager of the joint family property and the defendant no. 1 was never incharge of the property nor he had any control over the same. She further averred that the defendant no. 1 was in the habit of wasting money and his activities were adverse to the interest.of the family and the family property. He was secretary of one physical institution and it appeared that for raising funds for the said institution, he had taken loan from defendant no. 2 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were not at all concerned with the said loan. They alleged that the alleged agreement of sale dated 31.1.1969 was not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs in the property as the said transaction was not for the benefit of the family or for legal necessity. They submitted that they were never parties to the proceedings in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and, therefore, they were not bound by the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 78 of 1969. According to them, they learnt about the transaction in or about the month of February, 1971 and, therefore, they instituted the suit for declaration that the alleged agreement of sale dated 31.1.1969 between defendants nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property was unlawful, illegal and not enforceable under the law and for further declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis