The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of an undivided share of joint family property without the consent of all co-parceners and without family necessity is void and not merely voidable. The judgment also clarified that an execution sale of an undivided share causes a severance of the joint family estate, leading to the conclusion that the joint family estate is no longer in existence.

Chakravartti, J. :- These are two appeals, arising out of the same suit and the same judgment, S.A. No. 1261 of 1943 being an appeal by the plffs. and S.A. No. 1511 of 1943 an appeal by the deft. The matter came up to this Court, once before and having been remanded, has come up a second time after a second decision by the lower appellate Court.

2. The subject-matter in dispute is a house, situated in the town of Asansol, which, admittedly, was acquired by and belonged to one Hanuman Singh. Hanuman was governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and his descendants will appear from the following genealogical table.

3. As far as it appears from the record, all the persons shown in the above table, except Hanuman and Deoman, were alive at all material times and are still alive. It will be seen that Hanuman left two sons, named Ram Nehera and Sam Janam, Ram Nehera had four sons, named Deoman, Ram Kripal, Ram Sagar and Baramasia and of them, Baramasia has to sons, named Bamdas and Shyamdas, Ram Janam, the other son of Hanuman, has two sons, named Harinarain and Baramdeo and the former of them has two sons, named Jadunandan and Shewpujan Deoman died in the year 1933. When Hanuman died does not appear, but it is clear that he died before any of the transaction with which the present suit is concerned took place.

4. Hanuman Singh was a resident of the district of Sahabad and he acquired the house at Asansol when he was employed there in a Colliery. His elder son, Ram Nehera, worked and lived elsewhere but the younger son, Ram Janam, appears generally to have lived with him. After his death, Ram Janam introduced into the house the deft. Jugal Mohini who was his mistress. The two were living together when on 18-8-1929, one Mr. Agabeg obtained a decree against Ram Janam for a refund of Rs. 500 which was the price paid for another house which Ram Janam had sold to Mr. Agabeg and in which Ram Janam was found to have no title. In execution of that decree Agabeg brought the present house to sale and it was purchased by one Kedar Bhandary on 1-3-1930. On the 27th July following, Kedar sold the house to Jugal Mohini and the result of that transaction was that Ram Janam continued to live in the house. By 1936, however, the relations between him and Jugal Mohini ceased to be cordial and in that year she brought a suit against him for recovery of possession of the house on the allegation that she had been wrongfully and forcibly expelled. On 31-8-1936, the suit was decreed. Shortly thereafter, on 18-9-1936, the plffs. purchased a 13 annas 4 pies share in the house from the sons and grandsons of Ram Janam and all the surviving members of Ram Neheras branch, except Baramasia.

5. In 1937, Jugal Mohini attempted to take possession of the house in execution of her decree against Ram Janam, but met with opposition from the plffs. Thereupon, she commenced a proceeding under O. 21, R. 97, Civil P. C., in which the plffs. set up their purchase. The Court ruled that it could not go into complicated questions of title in that summary proceeding and made an order for possession in the defendants favour on the finding that the vendors of the plffs. had never been in possession of the house. The order was made on 19-3-1938.

6. On 22-3-1938, the plffs. brought the present suit under O. 21, R. 103, Civil P. C., for a declaration of their "title to and possession over a 13 as 4 pies share" of the property and a further declaration that the deft. Jugal Mohini had "no connection therewith". No other person was impleaded in the suit. Briefly stated, the plff.s case was that the house was joint family property belonging to the co-parcenary constituted of the sons, grandsons and great grandsons of Hanuman Singh, that they, the plffs. had validly acquired a 13 annas 4 pies share thereof and were in possession, that the so-called purchase by the deft. was a collusive and benami transaction in the interest of Ram Janam and that the debt for which the house had b