M.R. VINODA versus M.S. SUSHEELAMMA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 13-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
557
   [2021] 12 S.C.R. 557
557
M.R. VINODA
v.
M.S. SUSHEELAMMA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2017)
DECEMBER 13, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Hindu Law: Mitakshara law – Functions of Karta – Validity
of Relinquishment Deed – In the instant case, there were three
branches of Joint Hindu Family – On 15 April 1961, the eldest
members of the three branches executed a partition deed, dividing
the Joint Hindu family properties – On 13March 1969, the eldest
sons of two branches executed a relinquishment deed in which they
relinquished their branch’s share in favour of the head of the third
branch named ‘P’ – On 18 November 1994, Plaintiff No.1-4, the
younger sons of one of the branch filed suit seeking a declaration
that the relinquishment deed was null and void – Trial Court dismissed
the suit as barred by limitation and held that Defendant No.4 was
entitled to execute relinquishment deed – First appellate court
decreed the suit inter alia holding that Defendant No. 4 was not
competent to execute the relinquishment deed, which being void,
the suit was not barred by limitation – High Court held relinquishment
deed was not void ab initio and suit to be barred by limitation – On
appeal, held: Karta of a joint Hindu family can dispose of joint
family property involving the undivided interest of the minor of the
family – Therefore, contention that Plaintiff No.4 being minor on
13 March 1969, his eldest brother Defendant No.4, had no right to
relinquish his shares is discarded – As Plaintiff No.1-4’s father died
in 1967, Defendant No.4, as the eldest brother of the branch being
the Karta, alone could have managed the property on behalf of the
joint Hindu family branch of which he was the head – A Karta may
alienate the joint family property for value, either for legal necessity
or for the benefit of the estate, to bind the interests of all the
undivided members of the family – The partition deed acknowledges
that during the joint family status, “all properties” were mortgaged
for Rs. 32,000/- – Admittedly, the repayments were made and the
joint Hindu family properties were freed from mortgage shortly
before the execution of the relinquishment deed– In index of lands,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
it was mentioned that ‘P’ got the property released and the rights
were redeemed in his favour – The relinquishment deed was an
acknowledgment of the rights and interest of branchof ‘P’ – From
the evidence on record, it is apparent, ‘P’ had paid the larger share
in the redemption of the mortgage and had managed the legal
proceedings in the redemption suit – The repayment so made by ‘P’
served the interest for the entire family – Thus, the relinquishment
was made on account of the repayment of the debt made by ‘P’ –
There was a legal necessity to settle the account with ‘P’ who had
made significant payments to redeem the properties that had fallen
in the share of other branches – The relinquishment deed was for
legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate belonging to his
branch of the family – Hence, relinquishment deed cannot be
declared as null and void – In respect of question of limitation,
Art.109 of the Schedule of Limitation Act applies to a plaint for
setting aside the father’s alienation of ancestral property governed
by Mitakshara law which states that suit must be filed within 12
years when the alienee takes possession of the property – By
applying Art.109, the suit would be barred by limitation as it was
filed in 1994, nearly 24 years after the relinquishment deed was
executed and nearly 21 years after Plaintiff No.3 attained majority
in 1973.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD: 1. A Karta of a joint Hindu family can dispose of
joint family property involving the undivided interest of the minor
of the family therein. This being the position, a coparcener cannot
seek an injunction restraining the Karta from alienating joint
Hindu family property, but has a right to challenge alienation, as
the alienation is not beyond the scope of challenge by other
members of the joint family, and thereby scrutiny of the court.
Latter right entails the right to claim a share in the joint family
estate free from unnecessary and unwanted encumbrances,
whereas the former embraces the right to interfere with the act
of management of the joint family affairs. In the light of the
aforementioned proposition of law, the Plaintiff No. 3 cannot argue
that their

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