Sale deeds executed by a senior family member are valid if conducted for legal necessity and with mental competency, reinforcing the rights of the karta under coparcenary property law.

JUDGMENT :

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

1. This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 25.05.2019 (decree signed on 03.06.2019) passed by the learned District Judge VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 25 of 2010 whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 19.04.2010 (decree signed on 06.05.2010) passed by the learned Sub-Judge No. II, Palamau at Daltonganj in T.S. No. 136 of 2002. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit.

2. The suit was filed for declaration of sale deed No. 9356 dated 18.10.2002 executed by Sarwan Tiwary father of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi as void-ab-initio and further that the plaintiffs have got right to get such a declaration as the sale deed is voidable and the suit property was the coparcenary property.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no consideration amount was paid to the father of the plaintiffs who had executed the sale-deed dated 18.10.2002 in favour of the defendant No. 1. He has also submitted that the father of the plaintiffs, though was alive at the time of filing the suit, but was not made party as he was a person of unsound mind.

4. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel has further submitted that the suit property was purchased in the name of the father of the plaintiffs vide sale-deed No. 9175 and 9176 both dated 08.12.1982 but those deeds were also not exhibited before the learned court and while explaining the reason for not exhibiting the sale-deeds standing in the name of the father of the plaintiffs , the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the fact that the property was purchased in the name of the father of the plaintiffs is not in dispute. He has further submitted that the suit property was coparcenary property.

5. The learned counsel has also submitted with respect to the recital mentioned in Exhibit-B (sale deed No. 9356 dated 18.10.2002 – involved in this case) it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the alleged sale-deed was not executed in sound state of mind by the father of the plaintiffs and at the time of execution of alleged sale-deed, the father of the plaintiffs was suffering from mental deceases and he was neither capable of knowing anything nor he was capable to transfer the suit land. In support of the plea of unsoundness of mind of the father, the plaintiffs had also produced two medical papers i.e. exhibit-1 and exhibit-1/a and sought a declaration that the sale-deed was void-ab-initio. At the same time, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was mentioned in exhibit- B itself that the father of the plaintiffs was transferring the property which included the right of the plaintiffs as well. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the sale-deed itself it was mentioned that the consideration amount would be paid later on by making appropriate endorsement in the parcha but there was no evidence in connection with any endorsement made in the parcha showing payment of consideration amount.

6. Accordingly, it is submitted that on account of the aforesaid reasons, firstly, that the property was the coparcenary property and secondly, no consideration was paid, the sale-deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No. 1 was void-ab-initio, null and void. He submits that both the courts have failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter and accordingly substantial question of law be framed and this appeal be admitted for final hearing.

7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble