MAGUNI PADHANO Vs. LOKANANIDHI LINGARAJ DORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Berhampur and dismissing the appellant plaintiff's suit with costs.

(2.) THE dispute relates to 1.48 acres of landin village Kumarad within the estate of Badakhimedi. The admitted previous owner of the propertywas one Sarathi Fadhano, the father of plaintiffappellant Maguni. Sarathi died sometime in 1917leaving a widow named Lakshmi, a son (the plaintiff) and two daughters. The finding of the lowerappellate Court was that for a period of twenty ortwenty -five years the plaintiff remained in Rangooneking out his livelihood leaving his mother in chargeof his property in the village. During his absencehis mother practically acted as the manager of thefamily, maintained her two daughters and alsocelebrated their marriage. For that purpose heronly source of income was 23 acres of land, leftby her husband Sarathi. Sometime in July, 1935 she took a loan of Rs. 60/8/0 from the father of the defendants by executing a. promissory note (Ext. B). On 1 -7 -1939 she executed a sale deed (Ext. C) in favour of the defendants' father conveying the disputed property to him with a view to discharge the previous debt incurred on the hand -note (Ext. B). It was further found by the lower appellate Court that the sales was for legal necessity inasmuch as it was made for discharging an antecedent debt which was incurred for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of the plaintiff's sisters.

(3.) THE question is undoubtedly not free from difficulty, especially in view of the sharp conflict between the Nagpur and the Madras High. Courts. As early as 1926, a Full Bench of the Nagur High Court in a case reported in - 'Kesheo v. Jagannath', AIR 1926 Nag 81 (C), held that any adult member of a joint family (male or female) was entitled to be its manager and that consequently an alienation by a Hindu widow who was managing the estate of her minor son and step -son for legal necessity was valid and binding. This view was followed in - - 'Pahdurang Vithoba v. Pandurang Ramchandra, AIR 1947 Nag 178 (D). Doubtless, these two decisions could be distinguished from the present case inasmuch as there the alienations were made by the female manager while acting as the guardian of her minor son. The powers of a mother guardian of her minor son stand on a slightly different footing. Doubtless, there are some observations in those decisions to the effect that there is no bar to a Hindu female being the manager of Hindu joint family. In AIR 1949 Nag 128 (A), these decisions were followed and it was further held that the right or status of a coparcener was not a sine qua nou of competency to become the manager of a Hindu joint family.