1974 (2) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiffs proved that Laxman Govind Mungi purchased the suit land benami in the name of Jankibai.
2. Whether the suit property is the ancestral property of the joint family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3.
3. Whether the alienation of the property by Krishnaji and Dattatraya was without legal necessity and without benefit to the estate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiffs proved that Laxman Govind Mungi purchased the suit land benami in the name of Jankibai:
The plaintiffs alleged that Laxman purchased the suit land benami in the name of his wife, Jankibai. The trial court accepted this claim based on circumstantial evidence, including the payment of purchase money by Laxman and the conduct of Laxman managing the property. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the benami nature of the transaction. The High Court emphasized that the purchase money was not conclusively shown to have been paid by Laxman and that Jankibai's conduct indicated she was the real owner. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, noting that the plaintiffs could not provide direct evidence and that the circumstantial evidence did not sufficiently establish that Laxman was the real owner.

2. Whether the suit property is the ancestral property of the joint family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3:
The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was ancestral property, which would mean it belonged to the joint family. The trial court initially found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the property was ancestral. However, the High Court disagreed, determining that the property belonged to Jankibai and not to the joint family. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court, stating that the evidence did not support the claim that the property was ancestral. The Court noted that Jankibai managed the property and exercised ownership rights, indicating it was her self-acquired property.

3. Whether the alienation of the property by Krishnaji and Dattatraya was without legal necessity and without benefit to the estate:
The plaintiffs argued that the alienation of the property by Krishnaji and Dattatraya was done without legal necessity and did not benefit the estate, rendering it ineffective against their interests. The trial court supported this view, but the High Court found that the sale was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's position, highlighting that the plaintiffs did not prove the sale was without legal necessity. The Court noted that the property was in Jankibai's name and that Krishnaji and Dattatraya had the right to alienate it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that the plaintiffs failed to prove the benami nature of the transaction and that the property was not ancestral. The Court also supported the finding that the sale was for legal necessity and benefit to the estate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.