SANKARAN Vs. SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is against the preliminary decree passed by the courts below for partition and recovery of a half share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The property was purchased in the joint names of the plaintiff and his wife, the 2nd defendant as per Ext. A4 dated 17-11-1958. The plaintiff is employed in Delhi and the 2nd defendant, his wife, was in possession of the property. While so, the 2nd defendant executed Ext. B2 assignment of the property to the 1st defendant on 18-1-1972 purporting to convey absolute title as though the 2nd defendant alone was entitled to the same. The suit is filed for partition of the plaintiff's half share in the property jointly acquired by himself and the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff has also claimed damages on account of the demolition of the house in the property by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff claims also the share of profits for two years prior to the suit and future mesne profits. The defence to the suit is that the property belonged absolutely to the 2nd defendant eventhough the assignment Ext. A4 was taken in the joint names of herself and the plaintiff. Even if it is to be held that the property belonged in tenancy in common to the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, the latter had the authority to sell the property and convey her title as well as that of the plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the 2nd defendant was entitled only to a half share in the property and Ext. B2 assignment by her can convey only her half rights. It was also concurrently found that the 2nd defendant had no authority, express or implied, to convey the plaintiff's half share in the property. The claim for damages was found against and the plaintiff was held entitled to profits as prayed for; the quantum was left for decision in the final decree.

(2.) The only question on which the second appeal is admitted is as to whether the wife has an implied authority to bind her husband by transactions entered into by her to meet family necessities. The courts below have found that the wife had no such implied authority. There is also nothing on record to show the family necessity for which the property had to be sold. The implied authority of the wife for meeting the day - to - day requirements of the household does not extend to the sale of immovable properties belonging to the husband. I do not see any error of law in the concurrent decision of the courts below. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.