CHIRANJILAL Vs. MUKHLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of conveyance relating to some land situated at Pilani which is admittedly the joint family property of Mukh Lal defendant No. 1 and his sons Gajanand, Sadanand and Vidhyadhar.

(2.) ACCORDING to the finding of the lower appellate court this land was acquired for the family by Ram Lal father of Mukh Lal. Mukh Lal had another brother Jawala Prasad. The two brothers carded on business under the name and style of Mukh Lal Ram Lal. This firm had dealings with plaintiff's father Ram Chander in respect of which a sum of Rs. 19237/4/0 became payable by the firm to him. Jwala Prasad executed a pronote for this amount on behalf off the firm in favour of Ram Chander on 28. 6. 27. The latter instituted a suit on the basis of this pronote on the original side of the Bombay High Court on 25. 6. 30. against Mukh Lal and Jwala Prasad in which a decree for Rs. 23270/13/0 and future interest and costs was passed against them on 6. 8. 30. Ram Chander died in May 1940 and after his death the present plaintiff Chiranji Lal filed an application for execution of this decree on 10. 2. 41. During the pendency of this execution application Mukh Lal entered into an agreement Ex. 2 on 18. 10. 41 with the plaintiff under which the above decree was adjusted. It may be mentioned here that Jwala Prasad had died before the adjustment and Mukh Lal was the manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his three sons Gajanand, Sadanand and Vidhyadhar. Gajanand was major at that time and Sadanand and Vidhyadhar were minors aged 17 and 13 years respectively.

(3.) IT is to be noted that a contract for transfer of immovable property by the manager can only be specifically enforced if the transfer itself is made by the manager, would bind the family. A manager can alienate joint family property for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family so as to bind other members including minors. But if the manager happened to be the father and the other members of the joint family are his sons he can alienate joint family property for the payment of his antecedent debts and such transfer would bind the sons. In these three cases where a manager enters into a contract for the transfer of immovable property but subsequently refuses to execute a conveyance the court may enforce specific performance of the contract though some of the members of the joint family are minors. In the present case the person who contracted to transfer the property was not only the manager but also the father of the other members of the joint family. He was competent to transfer the property in satisfaction of his antecedent debts. The decretal amount was recoverable from him personally and was an antecedent debt in satisfaction of which he could transfer the joint family property. The contract to transfer that property is thus specifically enforceable against him so as to bind the other members of the family.