GAN GAD HARAN versus JANARDHANA MALLAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
GAN GAD HARAN 
v. 
JANARDHANA MALLAN AND OTHERS 
MAY 10, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI 0, SUJATA MANOHAR AND 
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Legal Necessity-Alienation of joint family proper-
ties-Discharge of antecedent debts-Proof of-The vendee makes adequate 
enquiries-Major ponion of consideration utilised for discharge of genuine 
antecedent debts-Held, alienation valid. 
The Appellant purchased a joint family property from the father of 
A 
B 
c 
the Respondents when the Respondents were minors. After the death of 
their father and after attaining majority, the Respondents challenged the 
validity and binding nature of the sale on the ground that the considera· D 
tion was grossly inadequate, that there was no pressing need to alienate 
the property and that the income from the other properties of the joint 
family was sufficient to wipe off the debts and most of the debts were bogus 
in nature. The Respondents preferred a suit against the Appellant for 
Partition and separate possession of their 6/8 share in the suit property. 
The Appellant contested the suit on the ground that the vendors were 
obliged to alienate comparatively a small portion of the joint family 
property for the purpose of carrying on the business, that the income from 
other family properties were not sufficient for discharging the liabilities 
and that the sale was for adequate consideration. 
E 
F 
The trial court found that a major portion of the consideration was 
actually utilised for discharging genuine antecedent debts and the sale 
consideration was adequate, and it dismissed the .suit. The Appeal 
preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed. On second Appeal, the High 
Court held that since half portion of the consideration was only spent for G 
antecedent debts the alienation was not one for discharging the debts. 
Further, on the question of adequacy of consideration, the High Court 
remanded the matter to the trial court. 
On appeal, the Appellant contended that the High Court erred in 
holding that only half of the sale consideration was utilised to discharge H 
713 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A antecedent debt and therefore, the alienation cannot be supported, that if 
the vendor makes genuine em1uiry about the necessity for the sale of the 
property before the purchase and pay adequate consideration it was not 
necessary for him to see the application of the money and that it has been 
found by the trial court that the appellant had made genuine enquiries and 
B 
c 
D 
that major portion of the consideration has been spent for liquidating 
antecedent debts. 
The Respondents supported the judgment of the High Court and the 
reasonings thereunder. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the findings of the courts below and substantial 
portion of the sale consideration having gone into the discharge of antece-
dent debts, the High Court went wrong in upsetting the judgments of the 
Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. [721-D-E] 
2. In view of the findings of first Appellate Court and the long lapse 
of time when the suit was instituted the contention of the respondents that 
the High Court was justified in remanding the matter is not correct. 
Sri Krishna Das & Ors. v. Nathu Ram & Anr., AlR (1927) PC 37; Ram 
E Sunder Lal & Anr. v. Lachmi Narain & Anr., AIR (1929) PC 143; Ram 
Ivislma Muraji v. Ratan Chand & Anr., AIR (1931) PC 136; Radhklishnadas 
v Ka/uram, [1963] 1 SCR 648; Smt. Rani & Anr. v. Smt. Santa Bala Debnath 
& Ors., [1970] 3 SCC 722, relied on. [721-G-H; 722-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5281 of 
F 1983. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.82 of the Kerala High 
Court in S.A. No. 751 of 1977. 
S. Balakrishnan for the Appellant. 
Y.P. Dhingra and (B.K. Satija) for S.S. Khanduja for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High 
GAN GAD HARAN v. J. MALLAN [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.) 
715 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Second Appeal No. 751/77 dated 19.7.77, A 
this appeal by special leave has been preferred by the first defendant in 
the said suit, namely O.S. No. 27/67 on the file of Subordinate Court, 
Irinjalakuda. The said suit was filed by the respondent nos. 1-5· along with 
one Ramanathan who died pending appeal before the District Court for 
partition and separate possession of their 6/8 share in the property, namely, 
66 cents with building thereon in Kodungallu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.