Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J.
Narain Singh
Versus
Kanta Singh
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 688 of 1980 ;
Decided On : MARCH 28, 1984
EXCHANGE OF LAND - ORAL AGREEMENT - VALIDITY - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - HINDU LAW - MITAKSHARA SCHOOL - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - EXCHANGE BY KARTA - BINDING ON FAMILY MEMBERS - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 28 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LIABILITY - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs and defendants were members of undivided Hindu Mitakshara families. In 1974, they orally agreed to exchange their respective plots of land. The plaintiffs gave plot No. 143 with a house to the defendants, and the defendants gave plot Nos. 83, 110, and 112 to the plaintiffs. The exchange was not registered. In 1980, the plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the plots they received in exchange. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the oral agreement for exchange of land was valid and enforceable under Hindu law. The Karta of a joint Hindu family has the authority to alienate joint family property for the benefit of the family. The exchange of land in this case was beneficial to both families, as it allowed them to consolidate their landholdings. The High Court also held that the defendants' acknowledgment of liability in a registered deed of exchange in 1974 was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides that a fresh period of limitation begins to run from the date of the acknowledgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the oral agreement for exchange of land was valid and enforceable under Hindu law? 2. Whether the Karta of a joint Hindu family has the authority to alienate joint family property for the benefit of the family? 3. Whether the exchange of land in this case was beneficial to both families? 4. Whether the defendants' acknowledgment of liability in a registered deed of exchange in 1974 was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The oral agreement for exchange of land was valid and enforceable under Hindu law. The Karta of a joint Hindu family has the authority to alienate joint family property for the benefit of the family. The exchange of land in this case was beneficial to both families, as it allowed them to consolidate their landholdings. 2. The defendants' acknowledgment of liability in a registered deed of exchange in 1974 was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides that a fresh period of limitation begins to run from the date of the acknowledgment.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the lower appellate court.
1. This second appeal is by the defendants against a judgment of the reversal.
2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration that by mutual exchange between the parties, the plaintiffs got the lands (described in schedule of the plaint) and, in lieu thereof, the defendants got plot No. 143 with a Baithka thereon (as described in schedule I of the plaint). The plaintiffs case was that plot Nos. 83,110 and 112 with an area of 181/2 decimals (fully described in schedule II of the plaint) came to the plaintiffs by mutual exchange and plot No. 143 with Baithka thereon (having an area of 11 decimals) (as fully described in schedule I of the plaint), belonging to plaintiff, went to the defendants. These plots were situate in village-Masaurha Telpa, in the district of Patna.
3. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the same and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession in case the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit.
4. The plaintiffs, alternatively, prayed that if story of exchange of plots was not accepted by the Court, in that case plot No. 143 of Khata No. 51 be restored to the plaintiffs and they put in possession of the same by dispossessing the defendants therefrom and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land described in schedule II of the plaint. The plaintiffs also prayed for restraining the defendants from changing in any way the local features of plot No. 143 and in making alteration in the Baithka on plot No. 143.
5. The plaintiffs case was that the plaintiffs were members of undivided Hindu Mitakshara family with plaintiffs 1 and 2 respective Kartas of their family. The defendants, according to plaintiffs, were also members of an undivided Hindu Mitakshara family of which the defendant 1 was the Karta.
6. According to plaintiffs, there was Title Suit No. 102 of 1973 between the plaintiffs and one Kamal Nayan Singh and his dependants in respect of certain lands. That suit was compromised and a final decree for partition was prepared and as per final decree, the plaintiffs, amongst other plots, got plot No. 143, measuring 11 decimals, plot No. 110 with an area of 3 decimals on the West and plot No. 120 measuring 9 decimals in the village in question.
7. According to plaintiffs, the defendants owned, amongst others, plot No. 112, measuring 4 decimals, plot No. 110, measuring 3 decimals on north-eastern side and plot No. 83, measuring 111/2 decimals on the eastern side (as describe in schedule II of the plaint). According to plaintiffs, their Sanani Kita was in plot No. 143 and the Sanani Kita of the defendants was in plot No. 119 and small Baithka in plot No. 144 contiguous east of plot No. 143. According to plaintiffs, they had built a kuchcha house consisting of two rooms and Osara facing North in the centre of plot No. 143 about 4 or 5 years before the partition.
8. According to plaintiffs, a proposal came from the defendants through defendant 1 in Nov., 1974 for exchanging plot No. 143 (belonging to the plaintiffs) in exchange for the plot Nos. 83, 110 and 112 (as per schedule II of the plaint) to which the plaintiffs, looking to the convenience of the parties, agreed and accepted the same. Accordingly, the parties exchanged the plots as aforesaid, i.e., the plaintiffs gave plot No. 143 with house standing thereon to the defendants on 19-11-1974, and the defendants gave to the plaintiffs plot Nos. 83, 110 and 112 (as described in schedule II of the plaint). According to the plaintiffs, when they made arrangement for raising foundation for construction of a Baithka on plot Nos. 110, 111 and 112, defendants objected and insisted that plot Nos. 112 and 110 be kept in the same condition in which they were given in exchange, and the plaintiffs were not allowed to construct Baithka on the amalgamated block of plot Nos. 110,
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
