Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The only question argued in this appeal is about the effect of a deed of gift executed by one Balgonda in favour of plaintiff No. 1 on 9th June 1043. Mr. M. V. Paranjpe who appears for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the deed of gift is a voidable document, while Mr. Y. C. Chandrachud, appearing for defendants Nos. 4 and 5, contends that the deed of gift is void.

2. The facts relevant to the determination of the question may be shortly stated. The first plaintiff is the adopted son of one Yamunabai who died in 1934, the plaintiff having been previously adopted by her in 1926. Yamunbai was the daughter of one Shidu who wag the eldest in a family of four brothers. On the 8th June 1880 a possessory mortgage was executed by one Santai, the widow of Narsinga and the mother of the four brothers, and by the mortgage two fields bearing survey Nos. 366 and 367 were conveyed to one Ishwara for a sum of Rs. 600/-. It is said that this transaction of mortgage was consented to by Subai, the widow of Shidu, by Naiku, by Jivaba and by Joti. The contesting defendants are defendants Nos. 3 and 5, who are the grandsons of Jivaba. On 23rd April 1914 Yamunatbai executed a sale deed in respect of her one-third share to Paygonda, On the same day another sale deed was executed by defendants Nos. 8 and 9 in regard to the same portion of the property to the same Paygonda. Although, therefore, by the two transactions of sale two-thirds of the property was conveyed, it is now found that the sale-deeds are valid to the extent of a half, one-fourth share in respect of the first sale deed and one-fourth share in respect of the second. On 9th June 1943 Balgonda, the eldest of the three brothers, executed in favour of the first plaintiff a deed of gift and he purported to execute the document as manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two brothers, Paygonda alias Kakasaheb and Anagonda, The relationship of these three brothers to Paygonda will be seen from the genealogical table set out in the appellate judgment.

7. Mr. M. V. Paranjpe who appears for the first plaintiff contends that the deed of gift is only a voidable document, that it is not void, and that if it is voidable, it can be ratified. He says that if the deed of gift is void, then there is no question of the deed being ratified. But he argues that if the deed of gift is a voidable document then there is nothing to prevent the other members of the family from ratifying the deed of gift, though before ratification, it is not an enforceable document. In this connection, be draws an analogy between a sale and a deed of gift. In the case of a sale by a managing member the law on the subject is stated in Mulla's Hindu Law, Section 242(4) at page 288 as follows: