K.C. LAXMANA versus K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 40
40
K.C. LAXMANA
v.
K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2582 of 2010)
APRIL 19, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 58 and 109 – Plaintiff challenged
alienation of portion of joint family property made by his father-
the first defendant, under Ex.P-1, in favour of the second defendant
– Defendants relying on Article 58 took plea that suit was time barred
– Held: Parties to the suit are Hindus and are governed by
Mitkashara Law – Article 58 provides for the period of limitation to
file a suit to obtain any other declaration – It is a residuary article
governing all those suits for declaration which are not specifically
governed by any other articles in the Limitation Act – Article 109 is
the special article to apply where the alienation of the father is
challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties
are governed by Mitakshara law – Generally, where a statute
contains both general provision as well as specific provision, the
latter must prevail – Therefore, Article 58 has no application to the
instant case – The word ‘alienation’ in Article 109 includes ‘gift’ –
In order to attract Article 109, the conditions to be fulfilled are: (1)
the parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is
for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the
son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the
alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the
father – This article provides that the period of limitation is twelve
years from the date the alienee takes possession of the property –
In the instant case, Ex.P-1 was executed by the father of the plaintiff
in favour of the second defendant on 02.03.1980 and the second
defendant took possession of the property on 22.03.1980 when Ex.P-
1 was registered – Counting the period of twelve years from
22.03.1980, the limitation for filing of the suit would have expired
on 21.03.1992 – Suit was filed on 11.10.1991 – Therefore, suit was
not barred by time.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
Hindu law: Alienation of portion of joint family property by
father who was karta of joint family in favour of a person who was
neither coparcener nor member of family
– Suit for declaration that the gift/settlement deed executed
by father-first defendant in favour of second defendant was null
and void – Plaintiff was not a signatory to the said document and
has categorically averred in the plaint that he did not consent to
the gifting of the schedule property in favour of the second defendant
by the said deed
– Held: It is trite law that Karta/Manager of a joint family
property may alienate joint family property only in three situations,
namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii)
with the consent of all the coparceners of the family – Where an
alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is
voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not
been obtained – Therefore, the alienation of the joint family property
in favour of the second defendant was voidable at the instance of
the plaintiff whose consent was not obtained as a coparcener before
the said alienation – It is admitted by the second defendant that the
settlement deed was, in fact, a gift deed which was executed by the
first defendant in favour of the second defendant ‘out of love and
affection’ and by virtue of which the second defendant was given a
portion of the joint family property
– A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF
has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious
purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a
gift for charitable and/or religious purpose – Therefore, a deed of
gift in regard to the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and
affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’
– It is irrelevant if such gift or settlement was made by a donor, i.e.
the first defendant, in favour of a donee who was raised by the
donor without any relationship, i.e. the second defendant – The
settlement deed/gift deed executed by the first defendant in favour
of the second defendant was rightly declared as null and void by
the courts below.
K.C. LAXMANA v. K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Article 58 of the Second Schedule

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.