The capacity of a joint family member to alienate property during ongoing partition proceedings, upheld by definitive admissions undermining plaintiffs' claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.6237/2003, wherein the plaintiffs suit seeking relief of declaration to declare the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 dated 16.02.1988, 22.07.1989 and 02.05.1991 in respect of schedule 'B' to 'D' properties are null and void and consequently, cancel these registered instruments as not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs, who are the children of defendant No.2, instituted the present suit calling in question the alienation made by their father/defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the propositus, Thotada Iyappa, who had five sons. Upon the death of Thotada Iyappa, disputes arose among the members of the family, culminating in the institution of a partition suit by the cousins of the plaintiffs against their father/defendant No.2 in O.S.No.5212/1987.

4. The plaintiffs have averred that during the pendency of the said partition suit, and before the passing of a final decree therein, their father/defendant No.2, who was allegedly addicted to vices and was acting to the detriment of the joint family, proceeded to alienate portions of the suit schedule ‘A’ property, more particularly the properties described in Schedules ‘B’ to ‘D’, in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 16.02.1988. According to the plaintiffs, the said alienations were effected without any legal necessity or benefit to the joint family and were squarely hit by the pendency of the partition proceedings in O.S.No.5212/1987.

5. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule ‘A’ property is joint family ancestral property and that Schedules ‘B’ to ‘D’ form an integral and inseparable part thereof. The plaintiffs contend that defendant No.2 had no authority or competence to alienate the joint family properties, particularly during the subsistence of the partition suit, and that such alienations are not binding on their share. It is alleged that in the month of May 2003, the defendants attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties, which compelled the plaintiffs to institute the present suit in O.S. No.6237/2003 seeking appropriate reliefs and questioning the validity of the alienations made in favour of defendant No.1.

6. Upon service of summons, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, stoutly denying all the averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.1 specifically contended that the suit, as framed, is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Placing reliance on the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2, defendant No.1 asserted that she is in exclusive and lawful possession of the entire suit schedule property and that she has been paying the requisite taxes in respect thereof ever since the date of purchase.

7. Defendant No.1 further disputed the plaintiffs’contention that the suit schedule property is agricultural land and, on the contrary, asserted that the lands in question have been duly converted for non-agricultural purposes by the competent authority. It is also contended that pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.5212/1987