A Hindu female, though a member of a joint family, cannot be its manager or Karta and consequently has no right to bind the property of the family by alienations for legal necessity.

Judgement

NARASIMHAM, J. :- This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Berhampur and dismissing the appellant-plaintiffs suit with costs.

2. The dispute relates to 1.48 acres of land in village Kumarad within the estate of Badakhimedi. The admitted previous owner of the property was one Sarathi Padhano, the father of plaintiff-appellant Maguni. Sarathi died sometime in 1917 leaving a widow named Lakshmi, a son (the plaintiff) and two daughters. The finding of the lower appellate Court was that for a period of twenty or twenty-five years the plaintiff remained in Rangoon eking out his livelihood leaving his mother in charge of his property in the village. During his absence his mother practically acted as the manager of the family, maintained her two daughters and also celebrated their marriage. For that purpose her only source of income was 2.3 acres of land left by her husband Sarathi.

Sometime in July, 1935 she took a loan of Rs. 60/8/0 from the father of the defendants by executing a promissory note (Ext. B). On 1-7-1939 she executed a sale deed (Ext. C) in favour of the defendants father conveying the disputed property to him with a view to discharge the previous debt incurred on the hand-note (Ext. B). It was further found by the lower appellate Court that the sale was for legal necessity inasmuch as it was made for discharging an antecedent debt which was incurred for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of the plaintiffs sisters.

3. The main question of law that arises for decision is whether during the absence of the plaintiff in Rangoon his mother as the de facto manager of the joint family property was competent to alienate a portion of the same for legal necessity. The lower appellate Court relied on a Nagpur decision reported in - Commr. of Income-tax C. P. and Berar v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 1949 Nag 128 (A), and held that such alienation would be valid and binding on the plaintiff.

Mr. Mohapatra on behalf of the appellant however challenged the correctness of this decision and urged that it was dissented from in a later Madras decision reported in - Radha Ammal v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1950 Mad 538 (B), and that, moreover, it was opposed to the fundamental principles of Hindu Law that a coparcener alone can be the Karta of a Hindu joint family and a female though a member of the joint family cannot be its Karta and consequently has no right to bind the property of the family by alienations for legal necessity.

4. The question is undoubtedly not free from difficulty, especially in view of the sharp conflict between the Nagpur and the Madras High Courts. As early as 1926, a Full Bench of the Nagpur High Court in a case reported in - "Kesheo v. Jagannath, AIR 1926 Nag 81 (C), held that any adult member of a joint family (male or female) was entitled to be its manager and that consequently an alienation by a Hindu widow who was managing the estate of her minor son and step-son for legal necessity was valid and binding. This view was followed in - Pandurang Vithoba v. Pandurang Ramchandra, AIR 1947 Nag 178 (D).

Doubtless, these two decisions could be distinguished from the present case inasmuch as there the alienations were made by the female manager while acting as the guardian of her minor son. The powers of a mother guardian of her minor son stand on a slightly different footing. Doubtless, there are some observations in those decisions to the effect that there is no bar to a Hindu female being the manager of Hindu joint family. In AIR 1949 Nag 128 (A), these decisions were followed and it was further held that the right or status of a coparcener was not a sine qua non of competency to become the manager of a Hindu joint family.

5. On the other hand, the Madras High Court, in - Seethabai v. Narasimha Shet, AIR 1945 Mad 306 (E), and AIR 1950 Mad 538 (B), has held that a Hindu female though a member of a joint