TARNI PRASAD THAKUR Vs. BASUDEO THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit in question was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration that sale deed dated 5-6-1969, executed by defendant No. 2 who happens to be the father of plaintiff No. 1 and husband of plaintiff No. 2, was invalid as it was without legal necessity. It appears that defendant No. 2 executed the sale deed in question transferring 46 decimals of land to defendant-appellant. In the body of the sale deed it was recited that the sale was being made in order to raise money for construction of a Pucca house. According to the plaintiffs the sale was without any legal necessity and as such not binding on them.

(2.) Learned Munsif on consideration of the materials on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the sale was for legal necessity and as such there was no cause of action for the institution of the suit. However, on appeal being filed on behalf of the plaintiffs the learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit and has held that the sale deed was invalid and no title passed to the appellant.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has taken an erroneous view of law while holding that the sale was without legal necessity. First he submitted that whenever the Karta of a joint family makes a transfer of joint family property such sales are not void but voidable only. Reference in this connection was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh v. Ambica Prasad Singh (AIR 1971 SC 776).