The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law in determining the rights and authority of the karta of joint family property and the impact on coparceners' rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. The defendants of Title Suit No.65 of 1983 are the appellants before this court assailing the judgment dated 20th June, 1985 and decree dated 15th July, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Midnapur in Title Appeal No.2 of 1984 reversing the judgment dated 26th April, 1983 and decree dated 10th May, 1983 passed by the learned Munsif [presently Civil Judge (Junior Division)], Additional Court Kathi in Title Suit No.65 of 1983.

2. At the outset, before embarking on the facts and circumstances leading to the instant appeal, I like to record that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27th June, 1986 admitted the instant appeal for hearing, but no substantial question of law was framed.

3. However, by an order dated 12th April, 2013, a Coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court substantially erred in law by reversing the finding of the learned trial court that the family of the plaintiffs were governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law without any basis and not being based on evidence on record;

(ii) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court substantially erred in law by not even discussing the finding of the learned trial court on the point that impugned sale of the suit property, by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was neither for antecedent debt nor for any legal necessity.

4. Now, the facts.

5. One Subimal Kumar Maity and Tapas Kumar Maity, since deceased, both sons of one Bibhuti Bhusan Maity filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the 1st Court of learned Munsif, Contai against their father Bibhuti Bhusan Maity and two other defendants, namely, Jhareswar Maity and Bomkesh Das stating, inter alia, that they and defendant No.1 originally hailed from Orissa. They are Karans by caste and governed under Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 migrated to Midnapur and started to reside there. The suit property, morefully described in the schedule 'Ka' of the plaint, was the ancestral coparcener property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 being the only son of the father inherited the suit property after the death of his father. The plaintiffs became joint coparceners in respect of the suit property by virtue of their birth.

6. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.1 illegally and collusively entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property on or about 25th October, 1964 at a consideration price of Rs.1200/- and received a sum of Rs.900/- from defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 in turn filed a suit for specific performance of contract against defendant No.1 which was registered as O.S 353 of 1967 and the said suit was decreed on contest. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 had no right or authority to execute agreement for sale in favour of defendant No.2. The suit property being joint coparcener property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 alone had no right to transfer the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in OS 353 of 1967 was illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

7. The defendant No.2/respondent contested the suit by filing written statement wherein and whereunder all material allegations made out in the plaint was denied. It is specifically pleaded by the defendant No.2/respondent that defendant No.1 executed an agreement for sale in favour of him on 25th October, 1964 in respect of the suit property at a consideration price of Rs.1200/-. The defendant No.1 also received a sum of Rs.900/- from the contesting defendant/respondent. As the defendant No.1 neglected and refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the contesting defendant/respondent, he filed O.S 353 of 1967 against defendant No.1 and 3 for specific performa