SRI NARAYAN BAL AND OTHERS versus SRI SRIDHAR SUTAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 999 · Decided: 29-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-; 
• 1 
SRI NARAYAN BAL AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
SRI SRIDHAR SUTAR AND OTHERS 
JANUARY 29, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
B 
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 : 
Ss. 6, 8. 12-Joint Hindu family property-Sale of by Karta-Claim to 
nullify sale for lack of prior pennission of court to dispose of undivided C 
interest of minors in said joint family property-Held, not maintainabl1'-S. 8 
not applicable to sale by karta of joint Hindu family property involving 
undivided interest of minor in such property. 
The eldest male member of a Joint Hindu family acting as the Karta 
of the family, joining with him two widows of theJamily for themselves and D 
as guardians of their minor sons, executed a sale deed pertaining to certain 
joint family lands in favour of defendant-respondent no. 1, who further 
sold the lands to defendant-respondent no.2. The plaintiff appellants, who 
were all members of the Joint Hindu family, filed a suit for a declaration 
. that the said sale was illegal and void on the ground that the transaction 
\)'as vitiated by fraud, mis-representation etc. The trial court decreed the 
suit, but the lower appellate court rejected the plea of the plaintiffs and 
held that the sale was executed by executants validly and for legal necessity. 
The second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed by the 
High Court. 
In the appeal filed by the plaintiffs before this Court, for the first 
time it was contended that the Karta of the Joint Hindu family was not 
competent to alienate the lands as he did not obtain prior permission of 
the Court as envisaged by s.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship 
E 
F 
Act, 1956. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In view of the express terms of Ss. 6 and 12 of the Hindu 
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, s. 8 would not be applicable where 
a Joint Hindu Family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta involving H 
999 
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A an undivided interest of a minor in the said property. There need be no 
natural guardian for the iµinor's undivided interest in the joint Hindu 
family property and, theref,-.re, previous permission of the court under s.8 
for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor is not required. Joint 
Hindu Family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karla 
B and other adult members of the family in management of the joint Hindu 
family property. [1003-E, C-D] 
1.2. With regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor in joint 
family property, the provisions of ss. 6 to 12 of the Act are beads of the 
same string and need be viewed in a single glimpse, simultaneously in 
C conjunction with each other. Section 8, cannot be viewed in isolation. If 
read together, the intent of the legislature in this beneficial legislation 
becomes manifest. Ordinarily the law does not envisage a natural guardian 
of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The 
natural guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other than the un-
., 
D divided interest in joint family property is alone contemplated under 
Section 8. Section 12 carves out an exception to the rule that should there 
• ~ 
be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family 
property in which the minor has an undivided interest a guardian may be 
appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such un-
divided interest of the minor. The adult member of the family in the 
E management of the joint Hindu family property may be a male or a female, 
not necessarily the Karla. [1002-G-H; 1003-A-B] 
1.3. In the instant case the finding recorded by the courts below is 
that the eldest male member in the family acted as a Karta in executing 
F 
the sale and had joined with him the two widows for themselves and as 
guardians of the minor members of joint Hindus family, as supporting 
executants. That act by itself is not indicative of the minors having a 
divided interest in the joint Hindu family property commencing before or 
at the time of the sale. In this view of the matter, section 8 of the Act can 
be of no avail to the appellants claim to nullify the sale. [1003-F] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9570 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.90 of the Orissa High 
H Court in S.A. No. 378 of 1989. 
NARAYAN BAL v. SRIDHAR SUTAR [PUNCHHI, J.] 
1001 
P.N. Misra for the Appellants. 
Somnath Mukherjee for th

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