MURARKA PROPERTIES (P) LTD. & ANR. versus BEHARILAL MURARKA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 30-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_, 
MURARKA PROPERTIES (P)-LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
BEHARILAL MORARKA AND .()THERS 
November 30, 1977 
0
[N. L.-UNTW.U:IA and P. S. KArr.ASAM, J.J.] 
261 
Hindu Law-Common ancestor left behind vast properties-Sons and or/1er 
major coparceners conveyed_ their shares of property to a Company-Convey-
, ances · whethe·r indicate disruption of joint family-Conveyance.J if for family 
ben~fit-Validity of. 
-
A 
B 
The plai~tiffs and defendants were the descendoots of a common ancestor . 
who left behind vast movable and immovable properties and severa1 
business --
assets. On 9th December, 1932, each of the eight sons Of -the common ances-
tor executed- a document conveying his share of property to the appellant Com-
C 
pany stating that he W:l6 executing the document as Karta of the joim tam11y 
·consisting of himself and his sons. 
The suit by the plaintiffs (who were the 
son and wife of one of the sons) for setting aside all conveyances -and trans· 
fers and for a declaration that they were entitled to separate pr0perties anel 
funds wa-s decreed by the trial Court. 
, The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the family cons•sting of 
the common ancestor and his sons was a joint family until his death and there-
after bis sons· and grandsons continued to-be joint until the institution of the 
D 
suit. It rejected the plea that even if the family was joint, the transfers wi:-re 
for better ma-nagement of the immovable property and so_ would bind the joint 
family members • 
. In appeal t0· this Court it was contended that the original joint familv be-
came divided into eight different families on 9th December. 1932 and that even 
assuming that there was no disruption of the joint family, since the impugned 
alienations were as ·a result of the unaonimom decision of all the sons, they were 
. valid because they were for the benefit of the family.. 
E 
"Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The faDll1y became divided in statue; sometime before 1932. In 
any event the division in statuq was effected in 1932. Even if there \Va" a jo1nt 
family in existence, since the transactions were for the benefit of the fam1Iv, the 
other coparceners cannot challenge its validity. [269A-BJ 
(a) The effect of the -documents is that there were eight different joint fami-
lies consistinl!' of each of the sons and his sons and th11t the prooerties. which 
were owned by several sons. were transferred to a company consisting of them ... 
selves alone. Even if the recitals in the document do not prove sepa.ratlon Of 
status before the date of the dOcument. they make it clear that the ef..,ht sons 
who were acting as Kart.as of their_ sons and 
grandsons were transfenin2 the 
properties to a companv consisting of themselves alone. Though it may not be 
m the nature of a family settlement. this transaction had the effect of bringing -
about a separation in status and the members entered into the transaction as 
F 
co-tenants. 
[265F-m 
_ _ G 
<b) Tt is we11-estab1ished that the power of a mana1?er of joint -Hindu family 
to alienate jo;nt fa-milv pronerty is analol?OUS to that of a mana~r for an inf<lnt 
heir. 
The manager .of a joint Hindu family_ ha.:; nower to alienate for value 
joint familv property, so as to bind the interest of both adult and minor conar-
ceners in the property, provided that the alienation is made for legal necessity 
o:r for the benefit of estate. [2661!-F] 
' 
Hunooman Persaud v. Musummat Baboou [1856] 6 Moo. I.A. 393 referred 
H 
to. 
(c) The transactions bein2 for the benefit of the f3mity, they w0u1d be bind ... 
ing on all the coparceners. The transactions while were entered info by an the -
' 
-
A 
B 
,.._,._· . "· 
- . \' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ---(1978] 2 S.C.R. 
·\ 
eight sons and adult coparceners of the eight· branches were clearly the result 
of joint deliberations and unanimous decisions of all the adult members. [267 
D-E] 
-(d) The question whether an alienation is for the benefit of the family would 
depend upon the facts of each case. One vicv.· is that unless it is of a defensive 
. nature calculated to protect the esta.te from some threatened danger or destruc-
tion, it cannot be said to be for the benefit of the estate, the other is lhat it IS 
sufficient if it is such as a prudent owner, or trustee would have 
carried out 
with the knowledge available to him at the time of the transaction. [266F-G] 
In the instant case, the purpose of the tra·nsactions ~as to protect the pro-
perties for the benefit of the 

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