The karta of a Hindu Joint Family can validly alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, binding all family members.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 64 of 1990 whereby and where under the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 27 of 1986/12 of 1988, has been reversed.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their original placement in the suit and shall include the legal representatives substituted at different stages.

3. Plaintiff’s suit is for declaration of the sale deed to be executed by his father in favour of a third party, as it pertained to ancestral property in which the plaintiff had subsisting interest.

4. Plaintiff’s suit was decreed by the Trial Court, and reversed in appeal by the first Appellate Court.

5. Plaintiff’s case is that Rangu Pandey was the great grandfather of the plaintiff. He had two sons Shankar Pandey and Sibu Pandey @ Shib Dayal Pandey from his wife, and one son Meghu Singh from his concubine. Shib Dayal Pandey died leaving behind a son Thakur Prasad Pandey who was defendant no. 2 in this case and died during the course of trial. Shankar Pandey and Shib Dayal Pandey had land in village Honhay which was recorded under khata no. 136 and under khata no. 22 and 94 of village Siru. Shankar Pandey and Shib Dayal Pandey were in joint possession over the aforesaid land.

6. Shib Dayal Pandey instituted a partition suit no. 162 of 1928 for partition of his half share in the Court of Sub-Judge Hazaribagh which was decreed on 18.03.1940 and thereafter the defendant Nandlal Pandey filed an appeal bearing no. 64 of 1941 which was also dismissed on 12.08.1941 and the decree passed in favour of Shib Dayal Pandey and Thakur Pandey was confirmed. Shib Dayal Pandey and his son took delivery of possession of the land of khata no. 136 of village Honhay and Siru and execution case no. 5 of 1941 on 04.09.1941 and 07.11.1941. Nandlal Pandey and others were not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and hence he and his legal heirs started causing serious obstruction in cultivation of land of khata no. 136 because they wanted more share in the land and they lost all including Title Suit no. 38 of 1968. Heirs of Meghu Pandey also lost the suit in the Court of Sub Judge Hazaribagh and from the appellate court.

7. Thakur Pandey (Defendant no.2) father of the Plaintiff, executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant no. 1 in respect of schedule A of the plaint, who had no right to execute the same because the plaintiff was in joint possession on the date when the sale deed was executed on 01.10.1974 in favour of defendant no. 1.

8. The suit has been brought for a declaration that the sale deed no. 10034 executed on 01.10.1974 is void, illegal and bogus document never conferred any title on defendant no. 1. Plaintiff claims to be in continuing possession over the land and the defendant no. 1 had got no title over the suit land and his sale is void and the same was done without any legal necessity and also without consent of the plaintiff.

9. The defendant no. 1 in the written statement has pleaded that the Schedule A lands are among those which were allotted to the father of Thakur Pandey (defendant no. 2). After the partition suit no. 26 of 1926 was disposed by the Munsif Hazaribagh the schedule A lands and others were allotted to the father of Thakur Pandey. Subsequently, Thakur Pandey again brought a title suit no. 38 of 1967 in the court of Sub-Judge Hazaribagh against the heirs of Shankar Pandey and Meghu Pandey which was ultimately decreed by the 3rd Additional Sub Judge on 20.09.1972. Thakur Pandey was in exclusive possession of schedule A lands and other lands given in partition suit no. 26 of 1926 ratified in Title Suit no. 38 of 1967. He was managing all the affairs of lands of khata no. 136 including schedule A lands and was karta of the his family consisting of his son the plaintiff, his widow and daughters. In the year 1974 Thakur Prasad Pandey was in debt and for that he was making effort to raise money and also, he