Sale of ancestral property by Karta acting without legal necessity is deemed invalid as it affects co-owners' rights, reaffirming that such transactions require adherence to requisite legality and limitations.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.718 of 2011 by District Judge-16, Pune, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2011 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No.145 of 2005. The Appellant is original Defendant No.1 and Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are original Plaintiffs.

Respondent No.7 is original Defendant No.2.

CASE

2. Few facts necessary for disposal of the Second Appeal are that Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and Defendant No.2 are real brothers. Plaintiff No.3 is their real sister and Plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 are legal heirs of their deceased brother Ramesh. These are sons and daughters of deceased Narayan. The suit property stood in the name of Narayan who expired on 04.01.1965. After the death of Narayan Defendant No.2 Suresh became Karta/Manager of the family.

3. On 28.01.2002, the Plaintiffs received a notice from the concerned Talathi about proposed mutation entry in the revenue record of the suit properties. The Plaintiffs, thereafter found out that Defendant No.2-Karta Suresh has sold the suit properties to Defendant No.1 (present Appellant) under registered sale deed dated 08.02.2001. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, started revenue proceedings and ultimately filed the present suit on 28.01.2005. Defendant No. 2-Karta Suresh remained absent despite due service. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence, found that Defendant No.2-Karta Suresh had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 (present Appellant) and the said sale deed is not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Trial Court found that Plaintiffs are entitled to necessary declaration. The Trial Court further found that the suit properties were not sold for legal necessity/benefit of the family by Defendant No.2 in the capacity of Karta. Under Issue No.7, the suit has been held as filed within limitation. Trial Court declared that Defendant No.2 had no right to sell the suit properties in favour of Defendant No.1 and held that the sale deed dated 08.02.2001 is not binding on the Plaintiffs.

4. The present Appellant filed the said appeal and challenged the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court, by impugned Judgment and Decree has confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. The Appeal Court on re-appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the parties found that the suit is not barred by limitation and the sale deed in favour of the Appellant is not binding on the Plaintiffs and that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is legal and proper.

5. In these circumstances, the Appellant - purchaser from Karta, is before this Court in the Second Appeal.

6. This Court in its duty under Section 3 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (‘the said Act’ for short) called upon the parties to also make submissions as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, Article 110 of the said Act can be applied for the purpose of limitation.

SUBMISSIONS

7. Learned counsel Mr. Mogre for Appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit filed on 28.01.2005 could not have been held as within limitation, in as much as, the suit is filed just within 3 years from the date of receipt of notice from Talathi on 28.01.2002. He submitted that the copy of the notice is not produced on record and therefore, Article 59 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (‘the said Act’, for short) will not help the Plaintiffs. Relying on Section 44 of the Transfer of Prope