K C Laxmana S/O Chinnegowda vs K C Chandrappa Gowda on 3 October, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

K C Laxmana S/O Chinnegowda vs K C Chandrappa Gowda on 3 October, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 KARNATAKA 112, 2009 (4) ALJ (NOC) 781 (KAR.), 2009 A I H C 2092, 2009 (5) ABR (NOC) 916 (KAR.), 2009 (3) AIR KANT HCR 180, (2009) 1 KANT LJ 602, (2009) 3 ICC 854

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 

2(3) SUBRAYA sowm,
s/0 CHINNE sowm,
SINCE DEAD BY ms.

(I) UMA W/(3 SU8RAYA GOWDA ;
AGED 35 YEARS 

(11) SARVAJEET s/0 SUBRAYA-GOWi5A._  V
AGED :9 YEARS   

(III) SMVADARSHINE 3/.0 suAa%r:ASr'A Gcnwm.  '

ALL ARE R/G GADDEMAME;aH--§M£ﬂ£§;i(KI.'\r'i:L£Q§GE
POST BALEi~IOLE, KALASA H€'JB_LIf :   _ 
MUDIGERE TQ, C!£iCKMI}.f5Ai.LIR aIsjr._

2(<:) K.C. LAxMA:*a"s/'Q. CHIHNE ,c;<31_w£)A,

AGEQ'47ff--EAR5,      
occ: r'!GRIC;lJL'¥'{§RE,  a é % 
R50-;TC~ADjDEM;~mE,"'HjEMMAKm~v§L:.AGE
POST BAL'EH_{)i;E, --!(ALASA NOBLE
MUDECGERE 'Tc3,%4cH;c%<_r«:;sx:;ALt3R msr.

 V % _   RESPONDENTS

(av sr§AL1:éI ;§oHn: FOR sax. u ABDUL KHADER ma FILED UNDER SECTION 300 OF CFC 'AGAINST we .1U§§GMENT AND DEGREE amen 3.1.03 PASSED INA R;A.NO.2Qf9i5 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUBGE (SD), CHIKMAGALUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETFING ASIDE «V THE ssgosmsrer Awe DEGREE amen 15.12.95 masses IN '~.o.s.No.2§2/91 on: THE FILE OF THE Aam. MUNSIFF, = Lwunxgseng.

THIS APPEAL COMING Ohi FOR HEARING THIS SAY, THE

-CEJZURT DELEVERED THE FOLLOWING:~ contended that, the suit property is }'oint fami'iy"'p%.o';$.e:§*tg:Vin which he has got undivided 1/3"' sha're..,ue:h;:£:vA..i:hterest..VV:°<., According to him, defendant No.3,, his'tat'hser;_'h--ed..ho_'V%it.gh't to transfer the suit property in fat-i'o_or of who is not a co-parcener or of joint famiiy and consequently the;:.eti«ena.itiopth§eeie'*wi_thout his consent, under Ex.P1, ishuil anAdV_\to~id no'tV.'b£ié§o.i'é1g on him.

2. "'Ti_1.e;:.st;Vit" by the defendants. Defenvdohti:"f~to'.i1'I:§fi.¥ed--jtt'hetwritteh statement, which was adopted In the written statement, defendaht4.._i\%o..1VV'hes'._vad;h':itted that, the suit property £5 a jo»irtt feirnity orop.erty.; that defendant $30.2 was brought up ' V:Vbg'..Vhi--rh*~ia'nVo"vout of iove and affection ane considering H itrjéenaaiiés: as eiso one of the members of joint femiiy, the sot: oroperty was settied under Exﬁl, in his name. 2 iAccoroing to him, the joint famiiy property which was AA";-Weilabie for partition was partitioned between hireseif, if opiaintiff and other son Suhraya Gowde on 23.3.1990(Ex.P9). He has contended that, piaintiff having \ /Z taken his share under Ex.P9 without any demurj,i~r.i:s«..b_r:'et entitled to maintain the suit. Defendanti. supported the alienation of suit preperty meVde"ih'jvfeVo't_ir of ii"

defendant No.2.

3. Learned Trial Judo_e;....;onsidering l'the§._jp'leadiing%s = L' of the parties, raised as man;y.._ers.L 12.' After recording the evidenceend Dws 1 to 3, considering Exs._.F1__ to i?9"'ar:o: arrived at the conclusion. :'1tt}_e_ ;3.ljeintift'--is.i..not entitled to the relief prayecl, and suit. Bissatisﬁed by the Judgelent'i'laild.l melee Trial court, the elaintiff ﬁled 4% appe5ei'vvlh' the F5irstV.§Hpp.»ellate court. Learned Judge of First »Appel¥a.tve«.lCoixrt_ after reconsideration of the record and "re:esseesr%ie:ntA's::.V'of the evidence, found the impugned jud§'in.e'h§ aim decree of Trial Court to be penrese and ligcapritcioviis and liable to be interfered with. Consequently, eppeal was allowed, Ex.P1 was declared as null and droid, plaintiff was held entitled for 1/3"' share and also for the accounts of his share from the defeiﬁants which can /.7 be ascertained by separate application and directed to draw preliminary decree accordingly.

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decreeo-f__>First Appellate Court in favour of plaintiff, the defe'n_d:a{nr:"lj'l§o..2 has ﬁled this appeal against plaintiff and da:*aihaasnct"ailncaj; Since defendant No.1 has pas"s"e'd«.aiyaynjidvuring-'.i';tl5s:=2V pendency of this appeal, his led:-ii :'re"presen_fa~tivesi--:'hai}e._ been brought on record. VTi<iisa.appeal.ia'aé§"_:§Vdrnitted on"

22.7.03 to consider thefollowing.liq-uiestionsiioflaawvl (1) _'t§~..e'~~--findings of the Appellate Court is entitled to 1/3"" snare _ in tné~s_L':it p'rooarfy" is bad in lawzand Wl1ei:har...l:he suit property conveyed to V , 2 --.se-cond defendant under deed dated A r 2%'2~...3"l.i9a,o, is valid and binding on the plaintiff andiinvlxiat is the legal effect of non-joinder of " .iain.a£'har brother of the plaintiff in the suit? "

5. I have heard Sri.Ydganarasim?ia, leamed senisr counsel for Mrsllilamitha Mahesh, learned cdunsei appearing for the appellant / defendant No.2 and Mrs. Shalini 3ohn, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. / \ /I. accrues, it was contencleé that, in this case,__;*i'§h.tj_~to_17s:ie« _ first accrued on 22.3.1980, when Ex.?1 wes.Ufefxee.£iteo defendant r\3o.1 in favour of def'end,a.otfjvl*éo.2._.'a«hciw.'attest; event, even as per the admission of_P'.'l!-1 wléen:4_he i:aume:"'s. ts know of E-Ex.¥°1 clurtng zssseold _§1ertc'e-- sott filed on 1.20.91 is clearly bassetl Lesthed counsel fairly concesedthet, was not raised in the writtes that regard was not frames he contended that the bar ;iai':i9vis'l.1..._'L_'C*3.i9_"="isiv issue and since it goes to the root of the "being a question of law, it can be ;.~..:s_eo 'Aat.,v"sn§r stasis of the proceedings. Learned soiioséllfreferted tollééection 3 of the Act and relied upon the .tleoisio.ej~V...,l'r§V,".i-the case of 'KAMLESH BABU & omens vs...Ls3,,?ﬁTi.['RAz SHARMA & omens' reported in :1 (zoos) ctr 219* (SC) to contend that, Section 3 of the Act casts a upon the court to dismiss su¥t or appeal, if made after i ..._..the prescribes period, although limitation is not set up as defence. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of 'NARNE RAMA miR'l'i-«IY VS. RAVULA /.

SCMASUNDARAM AND OTHERS' reporter} in (2DG5). 6--_SCC

614.

(b) Refuting thee said con_ten§§_ons%«' iéa:i§§fa_5*.d"'€c'uVns.§i"" 2 for the piaintiff conteréﬁed that, :§'ssénf;»3_i prove the bar of i¥mitation;'iVx§i*h§ch Pgu-sasiséérg %<>F.V fact and iaw, in support of whi§fh:_shg c¥£éd«ii§iiAAeVAc:¥iacision in the case of 'RAi\éESI?i'"$§j.A9i?Sf§~1 VS. BIPIN VADILAL MEHTA AIR 2006 SC 3672 and _c:.Gi3*§eiii:ii£;_d~v9i'ii§af:f; :3.éw.'p£?ea""tannot be raised at the sfage in stzppsrt of which she cited the deciéicmin casse:1'.af'BABu RAM @ QURGA PRASA9 vs.-iinwaa FiA'i;~.S__1NGH' reported in AER 1998 sc 3921.

' VLe»3V:ne=.;£i"~c'e.is3"::sai further contendeé that, the parties are H by Mitakshara law and to set aside the g a¥i'.ea"n§*2"i'i::;V:*:'bsf ancestrai property made by the father, the V' Aipéripd "of iimitation is, tweive years, which commences the date frém which the aiienee takes pO$Sé&$$%8i"s of V' wizhe property as stipuiateé under Articie £39 czf the Act. Learned counsei cited the decisicm in WE case of 'SU¥%$DE${ /.~ 11 what the defendant may plead in the writterl;""state':f::}Vlei}:t;«_ the ceurt is bound by mandate of Section..3.,efv.th:e::Agt,ttb--«.. dismiss the suit, if it is found that ftlie, pleading, if his suit is barregl byi"',!_i_iﬁitaticr:".'it always desirabie that, if the to raise such an issue, he in Heleadings, so that, the other party and facts, for which the d_isrnissed:«V'a's--eairred by time. The court may; theﬂtlireshold as to whether the or Ordinarily, there wlli be aiwaysA'e__<:'l1ec:¥<:V.,sliA:§:i'«e:_r"-«t§fﬁr:"e report on limitation, at the time of Lfllirié suit er aepeal. But, in case the court dees .' V. rieVt'~ga'rii+i1a fagie firidmitéte be beyond limitatien at that stage, Vi.ze'.1~necessary for retarding any finding on the paint of lirﬁitation. In the present case, plaintiff pleaded geese' etaction as having arisen with the issue cf a legal xil_rl<>t:it:e dated 11.7.90 and defendant No.2 making claim _,,_dver suit property by ﬁling a suit in 0.5 Ne).-¢l7%91 and on 2.3.91, when he took possessidn ef suit prepeirty en the basis of Ex.P1. In the written stateme , with reference to /1'.

12 the pleading regarding cause of action to :ﬂ'£'e denial is evasive except pieading that, the..allé§.l§'éi./.t:a'¢iJseof action is non-existing. The deaial contempiated under Rules_:3' aadl\..As"~.of OV£c}.etv"'iIII':'; Since there was no speciﬁc ci'ai§,la£,_ the' *§iri'alfV':Co'i:§rtVVtlid not raise issue regarding» of It is quite often that, the questions of fact as wail, ;"a'*\."'l'i:§"fi5'~.ﬁ are bearaiised and indicated by the t ma£i«itiisiiglaiiatiir is net taken by surpriseMHtll'iii proceedings. when the matteVr*i:s'a« of fact and law, uniess pleaded, a party ca"rm_stV.b.e tseritiitted to raise it at the stage of co%iciu:lii:ngvl« of oroceeeings. Be that as it may. A perusal of tiiejizﬁgirrierztivfsassed by Trial Court shows that, the paint of.__4:"limivtatiesE; was raised at the time of hearing of argumseiits and was considered by the Trial Court. A V"-"_'§.:fotind has aiso been raised in the memorandum of second appeal. Hence, I deem it proper, to examine the contention regaréirig bar of limitationk /..

(d) The next aspect of the matter is 'fi{xIi*:ic.h'_.',€_§§*tig:ﬁle. under the schedule of the Act, would....1§_e'j,aeti§licahle...xl"

Learned senior counsel for the ciiefehrilar:t".i\io,2'--..cont:eh:3ed that, it is Article 58 which aap§3__iies,ds_ivnce a dveclalratioij been sought to set aside and not binding on the pla¥ntii:ff:";:r_ ' said contention, learned counselfor the._pl'aVi.nt.i'f_Vf:l §cont~§i,;nlﬁiV;gi1vi1\\'..that, the Article that is ap§;ii?ca'b:i'e.'_'Vis.a'l"i0€-L*;_ under the Act, which xaside an alienation of _tneVVVfether of a Hindu governee by Mitekshara of action acrues and the time «begins to 'run, when the aiienee takes possession of 'Voro§2e§*ty_.anci tthelperiod stipeiated is 12 years. ' period of limitation to file a suit to obtain I "any, declaration" is three years under Article 58 of 2 llthleschedule to the Act, commencing from the day, when Adlthel right to sue first accrues. Whereas Articie 109 under "the scheduie to the Act, the period prescribed is, twelve years. The suit by the piaintiff is not gar a eeciaretien of /.

15 in the schedule of the Act which would be appl~ice'b:le".i:4"..T said Artlcie provides for a perioci of limitati_oii~--..of for a Hindu governed by Mitakshara ike_ho'Aiiles.aV set aside his father's aiienetion."~--,_'in the.'v--";2i{.eeent'i*. defendant No.1 made the aliemitiron in ofﬂlgietendant V No.2 on 2.3.80 under'"V-Ex.¥?fA3."":eAn:dthe.'aiieneeuhas taken possession of pVropert\,{V_ on 22.3.80 i.e., when E:{:.i¢¥'3A:i..i.vVasiitegisteregofﬁohuiitilng 12 years from 22.12.30," suit in chailenging the alienzrtilon aside of Ex.P1 would expirevleri '.?.1V.3..:€.i'it._ljV'V?fh*e,:':'ptesent suit was filed on 1.1o.91. Therefore,""'t?;:e 'ei.'itdiai:as.. well within limitation. The Trial " V' "i%i.olding«VV'fl§a'Vt, the transaction is not an aiienetion "a.nd' other hand, it is a eettiement in the family, in fe»e:our.of:ai'..--son brought up in the family, had wrongly heici Athat,"Articie 58 is epplicabie and in that View of the matter, 're_ii:éa'l' of declaration was denied. The construction by the , ___iearneci "friai Judge, on alienation, is totaily erroneous. 8lack's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines "Alienation"

BS2 \) /j'.

" In reai property law, the transfer property and possession of lands, t:en*e:fne_:f:t:si" % or other things, from one person _V The term is particolarty eppiieci.3to'--.ebtsoiote'-se..__A'*<:;_s conveyances of real ;:;ropert'y~. 'The yo§en'te'ry"'; and comoiete traosfer*«¥i*ii*om or*:«e_' *pejiso'i2rt'o 3 another. Disposition. bV}i------c1'i:I:l'i§-_."--»..EVeI;jf'mAOd€; of passing reeIty'ia§}:i"the party, as distinguished fro:fe_v't;2eVssfintgj' it-2.ﬁ'g--'.i'V_ep.eretion of iew." I ' " " ' "

Joint'Vucon\2eyed under Ex.?1 by defendentv 'Need, in";'fevo:oc_'of defendant No.2, which has the nomendeizure 'settIijesiieot'»«ri~eed'. Learned senior counsel for ;1efendentV_:No..2 soendttted that, though Ex.P1 has been the nomenc§'a't'ore of settlement deed, it is in effect, a" the property was conveyed by defendant in of defendant No.2 out of iove and effectéon Hand toytierds poius obligation. Hence, aiienation of joint property has taken piece and the ieamed Judge of ' Triai Court was in error in hoiding that, the transaction under Ex.P1 is not an alienation. Hence, the First Appellate Court was justifiee in ireterfﬁing with the finding /,1« 17 or the Trial Court with regard to point of limi_te:ti'o§'t';j---:"i"i¥-us; the contention, that the suit is barred_--t3yv--'.:{ittti'tetio.n, cievoid of merit.

7. NON-JOINDER oF'ite;;essAR*ts

(a) Learned senior &V.coti.h:se§"-»t.for' tiefenodent No.2 contended that, the suit isbedv of necessary party i.e., S§ti§:i'a.ya Ego'-parcener. He contended€.::";§ertition of joint famiiy i3roper_ttn--..ai'i-.t'he*gttemjioeits joint family are, both necessia_ry*-- It was contended that, to pass an partition, all the co»parceners aretteoesssryVlipeniesand since the suit was not properly 'A«the"'~--.decree passed is iiiegai and caiis for 'int7etfere:tee--t._ ('i.}.)V__A'3- Per contra, learned counsei for the piaintiff "'iE:At>V:t_t_'ej'A£:ded that, there is no plea in the written statement ' V"..._"l;fegarding non joinder of necessary party, whtch shouid uifhave been raised at the earliest opportunity and cannot be permitted to be raised in the second appeaf. Learned % 18 counsel invited my attention to Rate 9 of Qrder I CFC, which provides that no suit shalt be defeated by reeéoti of non-joineer ef parties and to Rule 13 which staVtee_A»t§1:_e:'t',; e"f!_ objections on the ground of non-joieder or 'fn§sjv=)f;nC¥4e§*l'o-feéwV» parties shall be taken at the eeri'iest"po_ss.£_bl-e and in alt cases where issuesere settled, at o:frAb'efore'e'uch'*»Vl settlement, unless ground of'r--vt.ob3'-ectien'~fsutieeeoently V arisen and any suchl"~o_b}ectEo'n'{r;ot'"-so ta§<"en°sl1al¥ be deemed to have been __.;A'lternat¥vely, it was centenvjdiledv Gozeda the oniy other co-

parcener was n'ot_.'e:§jg%iexred"'by the alienation made under Ex.P;£-and eiiertotlterirvéseg he has deposed as DW-3 in the "v--su£'§[é'nd."iin tayourioflltne defendants. Learned counseé also subsequent event may also be taken into..4Loonv_e§deVr'etlon i.e., SUERAYA GOWBA has passed away ll"=-~.__"-storing"vtlte pendency of the proceeéings and his iegai A irjeeresentatlves- are er: record, as the iegal representatives . _'of5respondent l\io.2 / defendant No.1 and that, even they are also not making any claim by seeking a share in the /'..

19 suit property. According to the learned counseI,..jtiiej««..i§o;i impleading of Subraya Gowda is not fatai to *

"Whether the non-impwiieejéiiing of Sub.i;e'-ra'9e"'Goi?vda, " i can resuit into dismissei___o'f-..su3t, or'r'a--cr.ounvt? of non- joinder of a necesefrv There is novdispute»..t:i1at,._éeferieée'r:vt".No.1 has two sons E.e., ;3i'a4_.i%:;:fciff:1Ei=i:r'1;V_d partition of joint famiiy }oroper't\}--"{Vet_iier't«!<i_§ire.__s--:.i£€; property) has taken place amongsttitihem, on per Ex.P9, in which aii the three; 'c'o~.;3aree'iie_§*sV'wer'e aiiotted with the share. Aileging thet:Aeu:i:t"property was not subjected to partition under Aizixeefaséa"L».ithé';'i:;iar~z:t:on that took; place under ems is a partiai 5:n._eri:£ti'on, ciaiming 1/3"' share in the suit property, VVey"£hei__suiVt*'..was ﬂied. There ie no piee in the written e.__"g-ztveterrient regarding :1on-joincier of Subraya Gowea as a

-necessary party. Considering the scheme of Order I and Order 11 CPC, the Horvbie Supreme Court in the case of A 20 'PREM LALA NAHATA vs. cams: PRASA[}~'~---'Sg"1f'tV{}_§?{I_é15A,.. reported in AIR 2007 sc 1247, has held as_fo,i'V:|Aoys.(s§.A./,::' 3 " 13. It is welt understood' the handmaid of jusﬂce an£i.__n'ot its n';_§v_stress.n The scheme of C)rder't;:"'~a..V_;'1d Greer_uItiv-V_ci*ea'r!>,r shows that the prescriptions ﬂnereih' in the reaim of proced:§fet_ anadi'%5§t--»t§.n substantive iaw or rights. '' V%Tfi1iato---.~t?a:'e 'ﬁonsiders object£ons:'* regarciirég iftt2"ef;f;jafr1e::x 'of suit or joindeg iof ;§ea'rf§ies'*only};es4.';7ro'c1eo'u'ral, is further clean the Code which specifiﬁ-Elty.;£»;rovi'dVestthéitwno decree shaii be fsverseﬁ ' on account of any mis3¥.04indero~..of:~..§é\ft'i.es'"or causes of action or _ .non~joi.'xcler..of o'arti'es unless a Court ﬁnds that non-jsi'r1«dve.ro§vs of a necessary party. This is 'A o;i:th--e:'sa._me principie as of Section 21 of the v'a€?V:%c'h shows that even an ob3'ect£on to tersima'; jurisdiction of the Court :n which the skit vis instituted, could not be raises so siiccessfuily for the first time in an appeal wttagainst the decree uniess the appeliant is aiso able to show consequent faiiure ofjustice. "

1 21 So far as the law with regard to non--j:e~i.n.¢ie§f'__i:ef:ta.' necessary party, under Order 1, Ruie 9 an;1__{fJi'r<iVe%fA.t.:3.,t'¢_mire K 10 C?C, no suit shall fail becau;semn'f"mi'ejoi£jd~er-.gr:}"e'Ven§ joinéey of parties. Court can _proc4ee;ii"'egainsst".i.the before it. The Court has pcwe'r.:§:nder O:'i:¥er' ii, Vi>;s§J!eV10(4) to give direction to i'Sv'AAa}v'eCeSSary party. In View pf ebjei;:t;'en_ having net been taken in 'written~s§atenne'i'iVt.._ai?ici an issue to the said the Triai Court, the deemed to have been wa ivecix.' » ﬁe _SuisideyavvGe§rqde~.v_i§es"tVdepc>sed as DW«3 and supperted "'«._Athe:L_j'3"aii;enation AA5fv...s.n«:vt property made under Ex.P1 by in favour of defendant No.2. Inspite ef k'new'iedee"§ef..'E$<.P1, he did not claim any right or share in ﬂ_the prdperty. The piaintiﬁ' has oniy prayed for decree A Ceftttii;-{3"' share in the suit progerty. No relief against Siubraya Gowda was prayed. In fact the piaintiff has 'conceded the 2/3"' remaining share in the suit property in A 25 "Whether the alienation made by a Hindu Fathje"r--, by way of gift, to a relative or an outsider, iS_.iitli_'i««..a'n§I void?" 2 ~ Undisputed facts are that, Defendaijt,':"i'é:o.1fjfis' father of piaintiff and DW-3, whcg';Msoi_jsti.tuteci"

as members of the Hindu Joint _Fan*ii'iiy.:"--Eefore..'i:h'eeeititioht, of joint famiiy property amongsstwiitiaem ofi es per Ex.P9, Defendant No.3madeweiié';._e§§er;;ited"HEXLF1 under which, the suit property-T-'§va,s':"the name of defendant No,2,"igyii~o isza ;;reietive;"--ti1.o.uVt,:§'h' was brought up from c_h'iidii'ooe 3t3i,I No.1. Ex.P1 shows that, towarcistiﬁje ,,iove"ei1e3:_"e«£ife'¢tion defendant No.1 had on deferjtieot 'ahd.'V'toe:ards his wen being, the suit ~.,,.,i,ro'pe.rt§;?ifwae.,_settietiwii1 favour of defendant No.2. Piaintiff parties to E><.P1. Other than the suit ;3re';2erti{,'-;::a.7:*1:Aiition of other joint famiiy oroperty has taken R""'--..V:"'p,ie,ce iieniengst defendezit No.1, oiaintiff and DW~3 on 2_3;»3..u9G {Ex.?9). There is no dispute that, suit eroperty is _"a_.}joint family pmperty. Since, suit ptoperty was not it subjected to partition under Ex.P9, suit was ﬂied claiming 1/3"' separate share in it. Suit wascontateci on the /G 26 ground that, suit property had been aiienated under.-'$_x.P1, the piaintiff had the knowiedge of it and Jnaii;¢,eTm maintainabie.

Alienation of family propiertyi'...f;éva§=e :'-bV'-"a"::'-&§Virzafi;£ father / Kartha / Manager governed"

voidabie in three situations, ("afjy ifzecessity,

(b) benefit of estate véiltig'.Afhie__'ee'¥isent eii the ca. parceners of theV_famiiy,. "fh.eV':bi§'eeision in case {if 'GURAMMA ii*%§iLP+§*9£iei('é;JP?35eMi'ALw~h-eke the aiienation is not _i:i*--:e' co-parceners, it is veidable at the iiéstajhceef <.f§~*--;:i'eEeener, whose consent was not ebtaiinedi Iii theiiistént case, plaintiff has net conseritee é":'fsVrV:'fh.eEéiieiéativen made in Ex.P1. Mons purpose is gift for A*~ch3';fitéb.i'é-A..v"V_a:i§»*"'/ or religious purposes as generaiiy unAd'e2rst§I'Od..:3"' in the decisien in the case of 'TIMMAIAH VS. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3529, it has been e._é'he¥d~AA€hat, the Karta is competent or has the power to % -idispose of coparcenary preperty if only:

/.'.

27

(a) Disposition is of reasonable_;V"portio_i'r1' coparcenenr property.

(in) [Disposition is for re-co'g'r:isecl.A Yhe rationale behind the ir4:2*:p_ei":f'gfl.i'ssatsi;.;'i;yof disposition of coparcene.r§'~»prooeity_; is jtheﬁrotection it of interest cf other.*"t.e§orri'e_ners;A'Where other coparceners have inchoate and willingly .c:{o not deeletion of interest for oelraose,m_si2.ohV.disposition shall be ism-ipe{r¥3i5ssiEie»;. t In lfiiae-tzasle .o4f's'A'iv¥.'ii}§'ATHAYEE ALIAS RERUMALAKKAL ANvI3.§jA;$r'l§i€3*'¥'l-£Eii V'; :i(i)_MlARESAN ALIAS BALAKRESHNAN Ano »AQT--H_ER$iv,'«.rerjorted in AIR 195? sc 559, it was held that, the.*--.scooe.".jofA':=.t'l9§e words, "Pious Purposes" need net be V «V exte'{aoe'tiAV eeyoncl what has already been done in the "}.,ear*l§.er decisions wherein it had beer; held as feilowsz "8. Hindu law on the question of gifts of ancestral property is well settled. So far as moveable ancestral property is concerned, a gift out of affection may be made to a wife, to X /if 28 a daughter and even te a son, previded the gift is within reasonable limits. A gift for example.-.___ of the whele er almest the whoie of ancestral meveable property cannot be _u3:i'i:e};;l..'._:

as a gift threegh affectien: (see Muilafs'-i-}lin§itiVvl' K Law, 13*' E<:ln., p.252, para;225), A V as immovebie ancestral proipertgais:' the power of gift is much moii*e"circurnscVri,t:eci it than in the case of*.:'r"i*;oveabi-e_V' 'iiericestrlei property. A ieriindu ;ifeti¥_er"'*~e_r ai§y.,_..otviier managing memiaeniiags'irioiglieriﬁeice a gift of ancestrai V immg_y§ib.ie.v'V._VV :»prti~:::.ei¥t3;f..'-"' within r=eas_en'aipie.._liVAmits..:'_feir__ "pious purposes", (see Mi.illa's i-iiri'cié§V~._li;ev.(§.fi';ii«.13"' Edn., para. 226, p.25'2),.i -Now__ wh'a't...~il's generally uncierstoee by __ix""pi*eas piirpgsesf' is gift for charitable endfer .rs§§'§:gi;5u~s_ purgeses. But this Ceurt has it the meaning __of "pieus purpeses" te ."'~l'cesee'sji«il*;ere a Hindu father makes a gift within re'aso'n"able limits of immovabie ancestral pireeerty to his daughter in fuifiiiment ef an V' fantenuptiei premise made on the eccasion of the settlement of the terms of her marriage, and the same can aiso be done by the mother in case the father is dead : (see Kamala {Devi iv v u 30 in a Mitakshara fareiiy of his unciivlded intere.sVt~.L~.i_ is whoiiy invalid....A coparcener cannot ma~k--e_je_'_'j"'.j' gift of his undivided interest in the"i«':far'oi§yVVi""% property, movabie or immoeattie, e'tth'eiH',£¢ stranger or to a relative exceptsfor?"hippo-rpose:§,_\_A warranted by speciai textés.

13. We may also refet..VV:.to a p'assage Mulla's Hindu Lavijkﬂg. Fiftelehttzfsd-n_,_, Artitie 253, which is as foilowts:~l'g., V Gift _ of" u nciiivideﬁi iht.ejr.estV;.-- ( it ecco rd i rig to the 3_:M§t:£"§'ii<Si'.aVt'a ileaiiv va';5pi*ie'c¥ in all the $tatie'ss,.:':ivir;o«V':it-jopiaroenet"loath dispose of his u*nc¥i--videci 'lii'tere.st'*esi.ii'ooparcenary property by gift.'-.__ Saclt t'r'anse"etion being void altogether , there is ..,n'o~e'sto'ppei or other kind of persona?

A which 'p'r'ec~iudes the donor from asserting h.{s"~ri'g:h'tv to recover the transferred property.

"-".___.lAite:"'i_ti_ayi.;;'-however, make a gift of his interest A with 't'he;_gonsent of the other coparcenegg. It is submitted by Mr.?.P.Rao, learned AAV;"*~«_.cour:sei appearing on behaif of the it respondents, that no reason has been given in any of the above tiecisions why a coparcener is not entitied to alienate his undivided interest in the coparcenary property by way of gift. The \ /I

33. reason is, however, obvious. It has bearer,' aireaoy stateo that an individuai membgeff the joint Hindu fareiiy has no definite A the coparcenary property. By an aiie'net§on"'ofv'*., V his unéivéded interest: j;c'opai?T§:en'a~ry..,,:_'i;.,_.,1' property, a coparcener ce'nnot,_A.depri_oe* other coperceners of__'theirA"' ri_ght_t' ..g;o"§fti2e property. The object stvrict.ru~i.et;:Var;aVi%nst eiienation by of,"'g:f:',' mainteini the jointness of owners.h£p't'ver'£io pots5§esei_on of the coparcen'a:r3.'.__ proipézrtyt; Ito«.iis.tr£.io«,t?i'et there is no sp,e.t:if¥;r:fr'o text"uai _:eut,ho.ri'ty7 prohibiting an }3'I£enatio'n.Vb;r:'gift'«.en-d__the iaw in this regard has de~{eioped.,V_.'g.§*edVua_i'iy«,"" but that is for the _purpose*ofVj._ereyen'ting a joint Hindu famiiy ,. from being. c%i__s_i__nteg rated.

is, however, a settieo law that a fcopagnfcetnvety can make a gift of his undivieed interesttiin the coparcenary property to another ' ~coparcener or to a stranger with the prior it " consent of ail other cogarceners. Such a gtft wouid be quite iegai and valid."

(emphasis stapiied by me) /C, 34 the suét property is not bad in law and the as per Ex.P1 in favour of defendant 2 is .§i_e't._:val£_id net binding on the piaintiff. Qué.éftié'r.si_ consideration are answered acc<::reﬁii_V{i<_§'%s,a{. in the resuit, thg appea_¥___i§A'»dev:;Lid oi? 'me_ritVA,-ﬁnd hence is hereby dismissed. VInV:'£ize"r:_i_::u.r%i§*sta:t§esVsf the case, the parties are c¥ire_c:te_d to,beaiithéizjfrgétiectiésiéi costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court