2007 (3) TMI 756 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the Properties: Whether the properties in question were joint family properties or the separate properties of Defendant No.2.
2. Validity of Alienation: Whether the sale of the properties by Defendant No.2 to the plaintiff was valid and binding.
3. Effect of Prior Judgments: The res judicata effect of the decrees in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 and O.S. No. 4 of 1972.
4. Redemption Rights: The extent of the plaintiff's right to redeem the mortgaged properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Properties:
The trial court in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 determined that the properties were not shown to be coparcenary properties in the hands of Defendant No.2. It also considered the alternate case that the properties were joint family properties and found that even if they were, the sale by Defendant No.2 was within his powers as the Karta of the joint family. This finding was upheld, and the decree became final.

In O.S. No. 4 of 1972, the court found that the properties were joint family properties but dismissed the suit filed by Defendant No.2 challenging the sale, thereby upholding the validity of the sale.

2. Validity of Alienation:
The sale by Defendant No.2 to the plaintiff was challenged by his wife and sons in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 on the grounds of lack of legal necessity and absence of family benefit. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the sale was valid and binding on the joint family. This decision became final when the appeal was not pursued.

In O.S. No. 4 of 1972, Defendant No.2 himself challenged the sale on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was dismissed, and the sale was upheld as valid. The court also noted that the decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 was passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, but this did not affect the finality of the decree.

3. Effect of Prior Judgments:
The decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1971, which upheld the sale to the plaintiff, became final and operated as res judicata, preventing the wife and sons of Defendant No.2 and their assignee (Defendant No.6) from challenging the sale again. The finding in O.S. No. 4 of 1972 regarding the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 was held to be unsustainable in law and did not affect the finality of the decree.

The Supreme Court emphasized that objections to jurisdiction based on pecuniary limits are technical and cannot be raised successfully unless there is a consequent failure of justice, as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.

4. Redemption Rights:
The plaintiff, having acquired the equity of redemption from Defendant No.2, filed suits for redemption of the mortgaged properties. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, allowing redemption of the properties. The appellate court modified the decree, limiting the plaintiff's right to redeem only a 1/4th share, but this was challenged.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the entire properties, as Defendant No.6 had no valid claim over the properties due to the prior assignment to the plaintiff and the finality of the decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1971. The High Court's decrees were found to be unsustainable, and the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff a composite final decree for redemption of the entire properties.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, granting the plaintiff a decree for redemption of the entire properties and directing the defendants to vacate and hand over possession to the plaintiff. The decrees of the High Court were set aside, and the plaintiff's right to redeem the entire properties was upheld.