NARAYAN LAL Vs. SRIDHAR SUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave was granted in this appeal to consider the question posed:whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Miniority And Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the Act) were applicable to the Joint Hindu Family property sold or disposed of by the Karta.

(2.) The facts: Dhanu Bal and Param Bal were two brothers constituting a Joint Hindu Family. Dhanu Bal had a wife, Nidhi, an adult son, Jag Bandhu and a few minor sons. Param Bal had a son, Raghu Bal. Raghu Bal had a wife Satyabhama and a few minor sons. Dhanu Bal, Param Bal and Raghu Bal died. Jag Bandhu as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, joining with him the widows Nidhi for herself and as guardian of her minor sons and Satyabhama for herself and as guardian of her minor sons, executed a sale deed pertaining to certain joint family lands in favour of the first defendant-respondent on 25-3-1971, who made a further sale in favour of the second defendant-respondent. The plaintiffs-appellants who were all members of the Joint Hindu Family filed a suit to have declared the aforesaid sale as illegal and void on the plea that the transaction was vitiated by fraud, mis-representation and taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of Nidhi and Satyabhama, widows. The suit was resisted by the defendants - respondents on the plea that Jagabandhu was literate even though the widows were not, and had executed the sale deed as Karta of the family to which the other widow executants had supportively joined him in the execution of the sale deed for themselves and as guardians of the minor members of the Joint Hindu Family. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence, decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court rejected the case of the plaintiff-appellants with regard to fraud, undue influence, mis-representation etc. holding that the sale in question was executed by the executants validly and for legal necessity. The second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed in limine, for the High Court was of the view that no substantial question of law arose, requiring determination. Hence this appeal.

(3.) For the first time in the special leave petition the competence of the Karta of Hindu Joint Family, effecting sale of the Joint Hindu Family property has been questioned in this Court on the anvil of Section 8 of the Act. Therefore the question as framed at the outset has cropped up for consideration.