The authority of a Karta to sell joint family property requires the consent of other adult coparceners; unilateral sales by the Karta are invalid without such consent.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 1992 in Civil Appeal No.512 of 1986 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Nasik by which the appeal was partly allowed and the decree for execution of sale deed in favour of the appellants plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.63 of 1982 passed on 27th June, 1986 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik was modified only to the extent of 1/5th share of deceased Ramchandra Tukaram Kasbe, the present Appeal was filed by the partly unsuccessful plaintiffs. The facts of the case are as follows:

2. The appellants plaintiffs who are the original plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.63 of 1982 and stated that the suit land Gut No.368 admeasuring 4H 69.4R belonging to the defendant Ramchandra Tukaram Kasbe was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs by him for a total consideration of Rs.24,200 / . The defendant Ramchandra had mortgaged the land with Nasik District Coop. Land Development Bank for sinking the well in Gut No.109 in the year 1970 but he could not repay the loan and the bank had threatened to put his land to auction in the year 1981. Respondent defendant had no other option than to dispose of the suit property to repay the loan and that is why the suit land was put to sale. Upon negotiations, the price was fixed and earnest amount of Rs.7300 / was agreed to be paid and the agreement was executed on 1st August, 1981. The possession of the suit land was delivered pursuant to the said agreement dated 1st August 1981 to the appellants plaintiffs along with the standing crops. The sale deed was to be executed within one year by making payment of the entire loan outstanding amount to the bank. The respondent Ramchandra was Karta of Hindu Joint Family and had agreed to sell the suit land for the benefit of Joint Family. The plaintiffs paid Rs.7300 / to defendant and deposited Rs.5000.65ps. with the Land Development Bank on 3.9.80 towards the outstanding loan. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but defendant changed his mind and did not perform his part of the contract and avoided to execute the sale deed. Not only that the defendant refused to furnish information as to the outstanding loan amount and finally refused to execute the sale deed in the month of March 1982. The appellants then came to know that defendant had in fact repaid the whole amount to the bank and thus, committed breach of the contract and it was essential to file the suit in question. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement at Ex.16. The defendant admitted about the loan on the suit property and the insistence of the bank for repayment. He also admitted execution of the document of agreement dt.1st August, 1981 in favour of the plaintiffs. But he further submitted that he was in financial difficulty due to the pressure from the bank to repay the loan amount and therefore, asked the plaintiffs for some loan amount who agreed to give loan due to friendly relations but the plaintiffs wanted the document by way of security for loan which was executed by Ramchandra alone. The transaction was thus, a loan transaction not to be acted upon and the document was to be destroyed. The defendant respondent being in disturbed state of mind executed the agreement Ex.51 due to helplessness. He denied the delivery of possession so also the receipt of amount of Rs.7300 / and that the amount of Rs.5000 / was to be deposited in the bank on the next working day after the agreement and the amount of Rs.2300 / was to be paid to Ambadas Ramu Ugle. The