MANMAL Vs. KALYANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point for determination in this appeal is whether the sale of the disputed house by Kalyanmal. Nathmal and Chandmal on 22nd June, 1948 for Rs. 2500/- in favour of Moolchand defendant No. 4 was for the benefit of the estate. It appears that Fatehraj had five sons. Three of them i. e. , Kalayanmal, Nathmal and Chandmal had attainted majority on the date of the impugned sale. THE two other sons namely Manmal and Gumanmal were minors. THE house is situated in Nagaur and from evidence it appears that the family was living for the last 20 years in Jodhpur. It also appears that the house was an old one having been built about 100 or 125 years back. THE sale deed by Kalyanmal, Nathmal and Chandmal in favour of defendant No. 4 was registered on 24th June, 1948. Defendant No. 4 sold the house the very next day on 25th June, 1948 for Rs. 6500/-to defendant No. 5 Lalchand. Both Moolchand and Lalchand were impleaded as defendants in this case. Plaintiff Manmal who had filed the suit alleged that the sale in question was neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate and therefore, not binding on him and should, therefore be set aside.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that all the five brothers were living jointly and constituted a coparcenary. It is also not disputed that the three brothers who sold the house were managers of the family.