LexRADHAKRISHNADAS versus KALURAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19oi .A.utomoln'l1 Transport (RaJJSthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasth1n Hidayc.tull ih J. i962 Apil 11, 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] • We would, therefore, allow the appeals, and _,. quash the demand made upon the appellants . BY CoURT: In accordance with the opinion of the majority, these appeals are dismissed with costs one hearing fee. ' Appwl dismisaed. ' -- RADHAKRISHNADAS ti, KALURAM • • (A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAo J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) and Hindu Law-J<in.t f~n,ily p•~plrly-Sale by fatl"r and minor son-Whel~.er b1.nd111g on ~mo; sor:- ~egal nec'8sily /Jr part of sale consideration-If alienatwn ,iu.0tified- Inttrpretic'lt of sale deed-If transfers cultivatory right• in Sir also-0. P. • Tenancy Act,-1920 (0. P. 1of1920), s. 49 (1). R and his father executed a sale for Rs. 50,000/· transfer- ring 16 annas in~rrcs~ in two villages belonging to the joint family "together with sir and khudkashat lands ........ as well as the cultivated and the uncultivated lands in the village wilh all the rights and privileges". Subsequently. R filed a suit to set aside the sale on the grounds that actually he was a minor when he executed the sale deed and that the legal necessity was only for Rs. 45,000/-. He further contended that the cultivatory rights in the sir lands were not transferred and claimed possession over them. Held, that the alienation was for leg:>.! necessity and was valid and binding. The alience was only required to e;tab'i>h legal necessity for the transaction and it was not necessary for him to show that every bit of the consideration was applied for meeting family necessity. The transaction being for leg:>.! necessity the father was competent to execute the sale deed binding on the entire family :>.nd the joining of R, even though he was a minor, did not aff<ct its validity or binding character. • ' ; ' .. .. 1 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 649 Sri KrMhan Das v. Nathu Ram, I. L. R. 49 All. 149 (P. C.) and Naimat Rai v. Din Dayal, I. L. R. 8 Lah. 597 (C.) relied on. Gharib-Ullah v. Khalak Singh, I. L. R. 25 All. 407 (C.) Kanti Ohunder Goswami v. Bisheswar Goswami, 25 Cal. 585 Biraj Nopani Pura Sundary Dasee, 42 Cal. 56 (P. C.), refer· red to . Held, further, that cultivating rights in the sir lands had also been expressly transferred to the vendees by the sale deed. The provisions of s. 49 (1) of the C. P. Tenancy Act, 1920, that there must be an express agreement between the trans- feror and the transferee concerning the transfer of the cultivating rights in sir land are satisfied where the sale deed not only transferred sir and Khudkashat lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands but transferred these properties along with ''all rights and privileges", since they would include cultiva- ting rights in sir land. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil AppeaJ No. 49 of 1958. Appeal from the jud~ent and decree dated April 17, 1954, of the former Nagpur High Court in F. As. Nos. 95 and 103 and 1946. 8. P. Sinha, Y ogeshwar Prasad and M. I. Khowaja, for the appellants. Achhru Ram and Ganpat Rai, for respondents • Nos. I (a) to I (d)~ 2 and 4. .. 1962. April 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by l\IunHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal by certificate frf\m the decree of the High Court of Nagpur dismissing the appellants' suit for setting aside sale of two villages mauza Amaldihi and mauza Gondkbami situate in Mungali, tehsiJ, district Bilaspnr. It is com non ground that the two villages, a10:J.J with several others, were the joint family pro.: 'rty of the appellants and their father the third 1962 Ra ihskrisk.11 Jiu v. Kaluram 1961 Radhak,ishnadas .. Kalurum M udho!lcar J. 650 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [1963] defendant, Gorelal. On April 8, 1944, Gorelal, act- ing for himself and as guardian of his minor son Balramdas, appellant No. 2 and Radhakrishnadas, appellant No. l describing himself as a major execu- ted a sale deed in favour of two persons, Pandit Ramlal, son of Motiram, defendant No. 2 and Kalnram the first defendant for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. It was stated in the sale deed that the executants were transferring full 16 annas interest in the village Amaldihi and Gondkhami "together with sir and khwlkast lands, grass, lwthar padia gochar rivers, brooks, wells, tanks, bandkies, orchards and gardens and houses and the like, as well ae the cultivated and the uncultivated lands in the village
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.