A manager of a joint Hindu family has no power to make a gift of a large extent of joint family property to a stranger.

PALANISWAMY, S. :- The Madras State Bhoodan Yagna Board, represented by its Chairman, the 8th defendant in O. S. 31 of 1963, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, is the appellant. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and the fourth plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. The suit was laid for partition of the plaint properties into four shares and for allotment of three shares to plaintiffs 1 to 3 with provision for maintenance of the fourth plaintiff and for the marriage expenses of the daughter of the first defendant. The first defendant executed three gift deeds, viz., Exs. B-1 to B-3, all on 29-10-1954 in favour of the Bhoodan Yagna started by Acharya Vinobaji in respect of certain family properties. The main contest was regarding the validity and binding nature of these gift deeds. The plaintiffs contended that these gift deeds were not binding upon them and that plaintiffs 1 to 3 were entitled to their shares in the items covered by these gift deeds. The appellant contended that the gift deeds were made by the first defendant for charitable purposes and that the extent covered by the gift deeds was small, compared to the total extent possessed by the joint family and that therefore the gift deeds were valid. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiffs were not entitled to impugn the gifts by reason of certain provisions of the Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act (Act XV of 1958). The trial Court negatived these contentions and granted a decree for partition of the plaint properties with a direction that the maintenance provision for the fourth plaintiff and the provision for expenses for the marriage of the sister of plaintiffs 1 to 3 will be made in the final decree proceedings. Hence, this appeal.

2. It is not in controversy that the properties covered under Exs. B-1 to B-3 are joint family properties. Ex. B-1 relates to items 9 and 10 of plaint I schedule; Ex. B-2 relates to item 2 of plaint III schedule and Ex. B-3 relates to item 2 of plaint IV schedule. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the value of the properties covered by these gift deeds is about one third of the total value of the joint family properties, whereas according to the appellant, the value would be about one-fifth of the total value of the joint family properties. Even if the gifted properties represent only one-fifth of the value of the joint family properties, the question is, whether the first defendant had power to make these gifts. The law on the subject is well settled. The Supreme Court in Guramma Bhratar v. Mallappa Chanbasappa, AIR 1964 SC 510 had dealt with this aspect elaborately and after referring to the texts on the subject and the cose law, it observed at pages 516 and 517 thus :-

"But what we are concerned with in this case is the power of a manager to make a gift to an outsider of a joint family property. The scope of the limitations on that power has been fairly well settled by the decisions interpreting the relevant texts of Hindu law. The decisions of Hindu law sanctioned gifts, to strangers by a manager of a joint Hindu family of a small extent of property for pious purposes. But no authority went so far, and none has been placed before us. to sustain such gift to a stranger however much the donor was beholden to him on the ground that it was made out of charity. It must be remembered that the Manager has no absolute power of disposal over joint Hindu family property. The Hindu Law permits him to do so only within strict limits. We cannot extend the scope of the power on the basis of the wide interpretation given to the words 'pious purposes' in Hindu Law in a different context. In the circumstances, we hold that a gift to a stranger of a joint family property by the Manager of the family is void." In view of this decision, it is not at all necessary to connsider whether the extent of the property gifted by the first defendant in favour of the 8th defendant is reasonable or