A managing member of a Hindu undivided family may validly gift joint property for charitable purposes without the consent of other coparceners, provided the purpose aligns with the definition of pious purpose.

JUDGMENT :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the defendant nos.1 and 2 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.41 of 1994 and respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.05 of 1997.

3. The respondents in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.41 of 1994 and appellants before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.05 of 1997.

4. The suit of the plaintiffs(respondents in this 2^nd appeal) against the defendants (appellants in this 2^nd appeal) vide T.S. No.41 of 1994 was a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

5. As per the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 belong to one family and their common ancestor was Ratha Naik. The said Ratha Naik died leaving behind his two sons, i.e. Fagunia Naik and Jadu Naik and the branch of Jadu Naik has extinct, because, Jadu Naik died issueless. Fagunia Naik died leaving behind his three sons, i.e., Jatia Naik, Naba Naik and Kusa Naik. Jatia Naik died leaving behind his only son, i.e., defendant no.2 (Lokanath Naik). Naba Naik died leaving behind his widow Marisa Naik and his three children, i.e., Dusasan Naik, (plaintiff no.1) Gobinda Naik (plaintiff no.2) and Indra Naik (plaintiff no.3). Thereafter, Marisa Naik died leaving behind the plaintiffs as her successors. Kusa Naik died issueless. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are the children of Naba Naik. The defendant no.2 is the son of Jatia Naik.

In order to have a better appreciation, the aforesaid family pedigree of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.2 described in Schedule-A of the plaint is depicted hereunder for an instant reference :-

6. The plaintiffs and defendant no.2 belong to Schedule Tribe community, having their Sub-caste “Saunti”, but they(parties to the suit) are guided and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law.

The suit properties described in Schedule-B are Ac.0.60 decimals out of Ac.0.77 decimals of Plot No.522 under Khata No.17 in Mouza- Bhadubeda under Karanjia Police Station in the district of Mayurbhanj. The RoR of the suit Khata No.17 stands in the name of Jatia Naik (father of the defendant no.2), Dusasan Naik(plaintiff no.1), Gobinda Naik (plaintiff no.2) and Indra Naik (plaintiff no.3) and Marisa Naik (mother of the plaintiffs).

The suit properties under Khata No.17 was originally belonged to Ratha Naik (common ancestor of plaintiffs and the defendant no.2) as per 1941-42 settlement. After the death of Ratha Naik, the suit properties along with other properties left by him devolved upon his only son Fagunia Naik, as his 2^nd son Jadu died issueless. After the death of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendant no.2, i.e., Fagunia Naik as per their above genealogy, plaintiffs and defendant no.2 have been continuing their joint family and they have/had been enjoying their all joint and undivided properties left by Fagunia Naik without any metes and bounds partition between them and accordingly, they (plaintiffs and defendant no.2) have their joint ownership over the properties covered under suit Khata No.17 including the suit properties. In spite of their joint and undivided ownership over the suit properties, the defendant n