HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Banerjee
GANESHMULL SURANA - Appellant
Versus
NAGRAJ SURANA - Respondent
Suit 1131 Of 1947
Decided On : NOVEMBER 20, 1951
HINDU LAW - JOINT FAMILY - SUIT BY KARTA - ABATEMENT - DEATH OF KARTA - SURVIVAL OF SUIT - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - SECTION 2(11), CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed by the Karta of a joint Hindu family for recovery of money due from the defendant. The Karta died during the pendency of the suit. An application was filed by the petitioner, the next Karta, to be brought on record in place of the deceased Karta.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit did not abate upon the death of the Karta. The family, as a corporate body, continued to be the owner of the property and the next Karta represented the family in the suit.
Issues: Whether the suit abated upon the death of the Karta.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: * A joint Hindu family is a corporate body and the property of the family belongs to the family as a whole. * The Karta is the managing member of the family and represents the family in all transactions. * A suit by the Karta is a suit on behalf of the family and not on behalf of the Karta individually. * The death of the Karta does not affect the existence of the family or its ownership of the property. * The next Karta represents the family in the suit and can continue the suit after the death of the previous Karta.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed that the petitioner be brought on record as the Karta of the joint family and that the suit be continued.
( 1 ) THIS is an application for setting aside abatement (if any) of the suit and substitution of the petitioner in place of the deceased Ganeshmull Surana who filed the suit for self and as the Karta of a Mitakshara joint family carrying on a joint family business in the name and style of Messrs. Ganeshmull Nimchand, against defendant Nagraj Surana on (inter alia) the following allegations: Ganeshmull Surana at all material times was the Karta of the joint family and for the benefit of the family carried on a joint family business which acted as a commission agent of the defendant; that there were various transactions between the parties, and a sum of Rs. 10,887/7/-including interest became due which the defendant in spite of demand did not pay.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed in 1947. Ganeshmull died on 23-12-1949, and the Notice of Motion of this application was taken out on 1-5-1950.
( 3 ) FROM the dates it is clear that the application is out of time, Mr. H. N. Sanyal who appears on behalf of the petitioner has conceded that the petition does not disclose sufficient grounds for enlargement of the time. But he has raised an interesting question. He contends that the suit has not abated and a suit of this nature cannot abate by the death of a Karta. I trunk Mr. Sanyal's contention is right. As the point is an important one, and as I am dinering from certain decisions of other COURTS, I must give my reasons. No authority of this Court has been brought to my notice which directly covers the point.
( 4 ) THE Question is -- Has there been an abatement of the suit. The answer depends on the nature of property in Hindu Law, in the plaint the allegation being that the joint family firm acted as the Commission agent, the right to recover the money is in the joint family.
( 5 ) THE Hindu system of property has a peculiar characteristic. It has no reference to any notion that can be drawn from the English Law. In England ownership, as a rule, is single, independent and unrestricted. That is not so, as a general rule, in India. Individual properly is the rule in the West; corporate property is the rule in the East.
( 6 ) THREE forms of the corporate system of property exist in India. The patriarchal family, the joint family and the village community. The two former in one shape or other exist throughout the length and breadth of India, The village community exists only in certain parts of India, particularly in the Punjab.
( 7 ) THE patriarchal family may be defined as a group of natural or adoptive descendants, held together by subjection to the eldest living ascendant, father, grandfather, great grandfather. ' The patriarch has absolute authority over the family. Whatever property is acquired by any member of that family belongs to the patriarch.
( 8 ) THE joint family arises, where it does arise, at the death of the common ancestor. After the death of the common ancestor, if the family chooses to continue united, there is a joint family. The eldest son, as a rule, is the natural head. But his position is not like that of the deceased patriarch; the one was head of the family by a natural authority; the other can only be so by a delegated authority. He is head by choice, or by natural selection, and not by right. The eldest of course is usually the head. But it is not necessary that he should be the head. A junior member who is more capable and better suited for the post may be the head. The head of a joint family is known as the 'karta' or its managing member.
( 9 ) THE joint family may not have any property. But if it has, it belongs to the family which is a corporate body of which the members are individuals. The ownership of the coparcenary property is in the whole body of the coparceners. According to the true notion of an undivided family in Hindu Law, no individual member of that family, whilst it remains undivided, can predicate of the joint and undivided property, that he, that particular member, has a certain
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.