Ratios:
a. There could be a joint family within a joint family.
b. A Hindu, even if he be joint, may possess separate property.
c. Discharging antecedent debt is different from the alienation for legal necessity. Legal necessity requires the satisfaction of the necessity of the joint family.
d. When a member of joint family renounces his right in a property, the property need not be thrown into a joint pool. It may be held as joint family property of other members.
e. The members of the joint family when it remains as undivided family, either all the members of a branch or of a sub-branch can form a distinct and separate unit within the larger corporate family and hold property as such.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Law-Joint family-Joint family property-Sale-Legal necessity-Partition-1st respondent sold a property to 2nd defendant for Rs.60,000-Collector valued it at Rs.90,000 and valuation accepted by 2nd respondent-It was already under mortgage-Mortgage was redeemed after 2 years from sale-After 5 years from sale, appellant filed suit for partition alleging it as joint family property-Respondents resisted it and suit was dismissed by trial Court-Appeal by plaintiff-Parties stood by their stands-Held, there could be a joint family within a joint family-Property belongs to joint family of plaintiff and 1st defendant-Facts indicate that there was no compelling necessity for sale-Property was sold as self acquired and 1st defendant signed as owner and after sale, it cannot be contended that it was sold as joint family property and he signed as Karta -Suit decreed and half share given to appellant.
       (B) Hindu Law-Joint family-Joint family property- A Hindu, even if he be joint, may possess separate property-The members of the joint family when it remains as undivided family, either all the members of a branch or of a sub-branch can form a distinct and separate unit within the larger corporate family and hold property as such.
       A Hindu, even if be joint, may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Similarly, the members of the joint family when it remains as undivided family either all the members of a branch or of a sub-branch, can form a distinct and separate unit within the larger corporate family and hold property as such. In other words, a joint family can be constituted in a joint family which is not prohibited by law. Para 27
       (C) Hindu Law-Joint family property-Renunciation-When a member of joint family renounces his right in a property, the property need not be thrown into a joint pool-It may be held as joint family property of other members.
        It is also not necessary that the said property should have been thrown in to the hotchpot of all other joint family property held by the first defendant with his brothers, the other coparceners. The joint family in between the plaintiff and the first defendant can hold this property as joint family property through the renunciation of the first defendant by joining the plaintiff in execution of Exs.A8 and A15. Para 28
       (D) Hindu Law-Joint family property-Sale-Antecedent debt-Legal necessity-Discharging antecedent debt is different from the alienation for legal necessity-Legal necessity requires the satisfaction of the necessity of the joint family.
        Discharging of antecedent debts are of different from the alienation for legal necessity. So far as the antecedent debts are concerned, if they were not for immoral or illegal debts, those debts would be for legal purposes and are termed as antecedents debts. Legal necessity is certainly a different one and it requires the satisfaction of the necessity of the joint family. Para 34

J U D G M E N T:-This is an appeal filed by the aggrieved plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for partition and separate possession of his ½ share in the suit property and other reliefs. The plaintiff as minor had come up with the case of questioning the sale made by father, the first defendant herein and in that action he was represented by his mother.

2.The brief facts of both the parties before the lower Court are as follows:-

(A) The brief averment made in the plaint runs as follows:

The plaintiff is the only son of the first respondent-defendant. The petitioner-plaintiff and the first respondent-defendant are the members of the undivided joint family. The suit property was purchased out of the joint family income derived from the ancestral property. Since the first respondent-defendant is the father of the petitioner-plaintiff and the manager of the family, the sale deed was taken in the name of the first respondent. Subsequently, the building in the suit property was constructed with the loan amounts obtained from the Madras Co-operative House Mortgage society and with the joint family income. The mortgage deeds were executed in favour of the Madras Co-operative House Mortgage Society by the first respondent-defendant for himself and as guardian for the petitioner-plaintiff. The petitioner-plaintiff is entitled to half share of the property and the first respondent-defendant is entitled to other half share. Meanwhile in 1974, the first respondent-defendant met with an accident and as a result of which he lost his mental balance. Taking advantage of this, the father of the second respondent-defendant made the first respondent-defendant to execute a sale deed with respect to the suit property in the name of the second respondent-defendant. The first respondent-defendant was not competent to execute the sale deed as he was mentally unsound at the time of execution of the sale deed. In any event, the sale deed is not binding upon the share of the plaintiff. Hence the suit is filed for partition.

(B) The defence raised by the second defendant in the written statement are as follows:

The second defendant submits that at the outset, the mother and next friend, Anusuya Devi has no authority to represent the plaintiff and institute the suit. She also submits that the first defendant's residential address furnished by the plaintiff is false. She also submits that the suit property is a joint family property of the first defendant and the plaintiff. It is also false that the vacant site measuring about 2400 sq ft., was purchased out of the joint family income. At the time of selling the property, namely, the house and ground in the year 1977, the first defendant represented to the second defendant and her father that the ground and the house was his self-acquired property purchased from his own earnings. On enquiry, it is made clear that the said house site was acquired from his own earnings and not out of the joint family income. The sale deed executed by the first defendant to the second defendant contained recitals to the effect that he was the sole and absolute owner of the house property and that he purchased the plot from one Mr.Mohamed Ali out of his own earnings. Then he raised the mortgage loan with the Madras Co-operative House Mortgage Society and put up the constructions. He further categorically stated in the sale deed that he was the absolute owner of the said property and no one else had any right, title or interest over the same. Since it happened to be a long term loan, the mortgage deed was executed on behalf of the minor son at the instance of the Secretary of the Society and it does not confer on the plaintiff any right or title over the property. Moreover it is false to say that the first defendant lost his mental balance in a motor accident because the first defendant had transacted several business activities subsequent to the accident. There

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRASV.Periyakaruppiah JV.Madusoodanan v. Vasudeva Raja & anr., A.S.Nos.519 of 1995 dtd. 27.2.2009

Cases Referred (8)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V.Periyakaruppiah J
V.Madusoodanan v.
Vasudeva Raja & anr.,
A.S.Nos.519 of 1995 dtd. 27.2.2009