M.R. Vinoda vs M.S. Susheelamma (D) by Lrs. and Others

13 March 1969, his eldest brother Defendant No.4, had no right to relinquish his shares is discarded – As Plaintiff No.1-4’s father died in 1967, Defendant No.4, as the eldest brother of the branch being the Karta, alone could have managed the property on behalf of the joint Hindu family branch of which he was the head – A Karta may alienate the joint family property for value, either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, to bind the interests of all the undivided members of the family – The partition deed acknowledges that during the joint family status, “all properties” were mortgaged for Rs. 32,000/- – Admittedly, the repayments were made and the joint Hindu family properties were freed from mortgage shortly before the execution of the relinquishment deed– In index of lands, it was mentioned that ‘P’ got the property released and the rights were redeemed in his favour – The relinquishment deed was an acknowledgment of the rights and interest of branchof ‘P’ – From the evidence on record, it is apparent, ‘P’ had paid the larger share in the redemption of the mortgage and had managed the legal proceedings in the redemption suit – The repayment so made by ‘P’ served the interest for the entire family – Thus, the relinquishment was made on account of the repayment of the debt made by ‘P’ – There was a legal necessity to settle the account with ‘P’ who had made significant payments to redeem the properties that had fallen in the share of other branches – The relinquishment deed was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate belonging to his branch of the family – Hence, relinquishment deed cannot be declared as null and void – In respect of question of limitation, Art.109 of the Schedule of Limitation Act applies to a plaint for setting aside the father’s alienation of ancestral property governed by Mitakshara law which states that suit must be filed within 12 years when the alienee takes possession of the property – By applying Art.109, the suit would be barred by limitation as it was filed in 1994, nearly 24 years after the relinquishment deed was executed and nearly 21 years after Plaintiff No.3 attained majority in 1973.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court,

HELD: 1. A Karta of a joint Hindu family can dispose of joint family property involving the undivided interest of the minor of the family therein. This being the position, a coparcener cannot seek an injunction restraining the Karta from alienating joint Hindu family property, but has a right to challenge alienation, as the alienation is not beyond the scope of challenge by other members of the joint family, and thereby scrutiny of the court. Latter right entails the right to claim a share in the joint family estate free from unnecessary and unwanted encumbrances, whereas the former embraces the right to interfere with the act of management of the joint family affairs. In the light of the aforementioned proposition of law, the Plaintiff No. 3 cannot argue that their mother, as a natural guardian, being alive at the time of execution of the relinquishment deed, Defendant No. 4 being the eldest brother did not have the right and authority to represent and manage their branch. Plaintiff No. 3’s father, having died in 1967, Defendant No. 4, as the eldest brother of the branch being the Karta, alone could have managed the property on behalf of the joint Hindu family branch of which he was the head. [Paras 13, 17][565-F-H; 566-A; 569-C]

Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others (1996) 8 SCC 54 : [1996] 1 SCR 999; Sunil Kumar and Another v. Ram Parkash and Others (1988) 2 SCC

77 : [1988] 2 SCR 623; Bhagwan Dayal (since

deceased) and thereafter his heirs and legal

representatives Bansgoal Dubey and Another v. Mst. Reoti Devi (deceased) and after her death, Mst. Dayavati, her daughter [1962] 3 SCR 440; M.

Arumugam v. Ammaniammal and Others (2020) 11 SCC

103 : [2020] 1 SCR 41 – relied on.

Sudarsanam Maistriv. Narasimhulu Maistri and Another 1901 SCC OnLine Mad 91 – affirmed.

2. In the present case, the partition deed, Exhibit P-1, states that owing to lack of harmony in the family members, the members had decided to separate from the joint Hindu family status. The partition deed, Exhibit P- 1, acknowledges that during the joint family status, “all properties” were mortgaged to one ‘S’ for Rs. 32,000/-, which outstanding loan amount stood ascertained. From the evidence on record, it is apparent, ‘P’ had paid the larger share in the redemption of the mortgage and had managed the legal proceedings in the redemption suit. The repayment so made by ‘P’ served the interest for the entire family since, and as recorded in the Partition Deed dated 15 th April 1961, “all properties” of the family were mortgaged. Thus, the relinquishment made by ‘M.R.’ and ‘M.P.’ in favour of ‘P’ was on account of the repayment of the debt made by ‘P’ , on basis of an understanding between the three branches by the partition deed 15th April,1961, Exhibit P-1. Since there was a legal necessity to settle the account with ‘P’ who had made significant payments to redeem the properties that had fallen in the share of ‘M.R.’ branch, ‘M.R.’ was entitled to relinquish the share in the property in such exercise of his managerial power. [Paras 22, 28][573-A-B; 574-F-H; 575-A-B]

Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Dead) By LR v.

ThammaRattamma and Others (1987) 3 SCC 294 :

[1987] 3 SCR 236– relied on.

3. In respect of question of limitation, Article 109 applies to a plaint for setting aside the father’s alienation of ancestral property governed by Mitakshara law. As per Article 109, the suit must be filed within 12 years when the alienee takes possession of the property. When we apply Article 109, the suit would be barred by limitation as it was filed in 1994, nearly 24 years after the relinquishment deed was executed to the fourth defendant in favour ‘P’ branch and nearly 21 years after the Plaintiff No.3 attained majority in 1973. For the same reason, the suit would be barred under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act as it had been filed post three years from the date the right to sue first accrued as per Article 58 and when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs as per Article 59. The High Court, rightly rejected the specious and untrue plea of the plaintiffs that till two months before the filing of the suit, they were unaware and did not know about execution of the relinquishment deed by their elder brother, the fourth defendant. [Para 33][576-F-H; 577-A] Kehar Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. Nachittar Kaur and Others (2018) 14 SCC

445 : [2018] 9 SCR 986 – relied on

Mulla’s Hindu Law, 22nd Edition – referred to.