1977 (11) TMI 130 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the transaction could be held to be prudent and binding on the members of coparcenary? Held that - Appeal allowed. The family of Ramniranjandas Murarka became divided in status before 1932 and that in any even- a division in status was effected from the date of the document Ex. L etc. in 1932 and that even if there was a joint family in existence as the transactions were for the benefit of the family the other coparceners cannot challenge its validity. In the result the appeal is allowed and the decree of the trial court is set aside so far as the appellants Defendant 12 and Defendant 13 are concerned. Costs will be paid by the contesting respondents who are legal representatives of R- 12 Bimla and Rahul and R-20 and his three sons R-42 R-43,

Issues Involved:
1. Joint Hindu Family Status
2. Validity of Impugned Alienations
3. Legal Necessity and Benefit of the Estate
4. Separation and Division in Status
5. Right of Respondents to Contest

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Joint Hindu Family Status:
The primary issue was whether the family of Ramniranjandas Murarka was a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law. The appellate court held that the family was a joint Hindu family until the death of Ramniranjandas and continued as such until the institution of the suit. The defendants argued that the family had divided in status by 1932, which was contested by the respondents.

2. Validity of Impugned Alienations:
Defendants 12 and 13, the appellants, contended that the immovable properties in question were self-acquired by Ramniranjandas and were later transferred to a company formed by his eight sons. They argued that the alienations were valid as they were made for better management and legal necessity. The appellate court, however, rejected this plea, holding that the properties were ancestral and the alienations were not binding on the joint family members.

3. Legal Necessity and Benefit of the Estate:
The appellants argued that even if the family was joint, the transactions were for the benefit of the family and thus binding. They claimed that the alienations were made after joint deliberations and unanimous decisions by all adult members, preserving the family properties by transferring them to a company owned by the eight sons. The court examined whether the transactions were prudent and for the benefit of the estate, ultimately concluding that they were indeed beneficial and binding on all coparceners.

4. Separation and Division in Status:
The appellants submitted that the 1932 document (Ex. L) itself indicated a separation in status, showing that each son acted as the Karta of his own family. The court agreed, stating that even if the family was joint before 1932, the document effected a separation in status. The properties were transferred to a company consisting solely of the eight brothers and their descendants, indicating a disruption of the joint family.

5. Right of Respondents to Contest:
The respondents, particularly Bimla and Rahul, who were brought on record as legal representatives of Murarilal, contested the validity of the transactions. The court held that while Bimla and Rahul could not oppose the appeal due to their predecessor's stance, Ratanlal, who challenged the transactions within three years of attaining majority, had the right to contest.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the family of Ramniranjandas Murarka became divided in status before 1932, or at least by the date of the document Ex. L in 1932. The transactions were deemed beneficial for the family and thus binding on all coparceners. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decree of the trial court was set aside concerning Defendants 12 and 13. The contesting respondents, particularly the legal representatives of R-12, Bimla and Rahul, and R-20 and his three sons, were ordered to pay the costs.

Final Judgment:
Appeal allowed.

← Previous Next →