LexSUNDER DAS AND ORS versus GAJANANRAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c SUNDER DAS AND ORS. v. GAJANANRAO AND ORS. DECEMBER 13, 1996 [N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MATMUDAR, JJ.] Hindu Law: Limitation Act, 1963: Article 109 and Section 14. Suit by Hindu governed by Mitakashara law to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property--Period spent in good faith in prosecutinf! suit-Exclusion of-Limitation period of 12 years from date of taking posses- sion of property by alianee-Alienees took possession of suit property on 30.5.1959 when sale deed was registered in their favour-Limitation period D expired on 29.5.1971-Suit filed on 20.8.1970 before expiry of limitation period in a Court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction-High Court on 22.11.1975 ordered return of plaint for presentation to proper court-Accordingly suit filed in proper courl on 26.11.1975-Held: Contention that limitation period for filing suit should be counted from date of filing second suit in proper court and so E counted suit was filed beyond period of 12 years and hence barred could not be accepted-Suit not ban-ed by limitation-Hence, plea of bar of limitation stood rejected. Alienation-By father as 'Karta' of joint Hindu family-Sale of an- cestral house-Sale deed contained recitals that sale of ancestral house was F for family necessity-Father-karta was Upper Division Clerk in Civil Court at relevant time-House was in dilapidated and rninous condition· and found to be a burden to family and seller was in debt-Father-karta not tainted by immoral conduct-Purchaser made substantial construction at huge cost-Eleven and a half years after sale sons of seller filed suit by joining their father as defendant on ground that sale deed was not binding on them since G house was ancestral property in which they had equal interest and hence their father had no right to sell it-Held: father-karta legally entitled to alienate property of joint family and interest of minor member off amity for his own requirement-Unless it was shown that the transaction was tainted by any immoral or illegal purpose-No evidence led to rebut clear recitals in sale H deed-Father must be presumed to be well-acclimatised in court proceedings 66 c SUNDERDAS v. GAJANANRAO 67 ... and he stood by the transaction and recitals in the sale deeHience, suit got A filed by father only with a view to knock out more money from purchasers and was a collusive suit-Plaintiffs made out no case for getting relief from ;.; Cowt in present proceedings and their suit was, there[ ore, liable to be dis- missed. . The father of the plaintiffs-respondents had executed a registered B sale deed dated 30.5.1959 conveying his ancestral house to the defendants- appellants and delivered possession of the said house to the appellants. There were clear recitals ill the sale deed that the sale of the ancestral house was for family necessity. The said ancestral house was in a dilapidated and ruinous condition, was a burden to the family and that c the father was in debt. The appellants-defendants made substantial re-con- struction of the said ancestral house at a huge cost. The father was an Upper Division. Clerk in the Civil Court at the relevant time. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit on 20.8.1970 in court lacking D pecuniary jurisdiction on the grounds that the said house was their ancestral property in which they had undivided 3/4th interest, that their father had no right to transfer the said ancestral house and that the sale deed was not binding on them. The father was joined as defendant No. 6 , in the suit. However, the High Court on 22.11.1975 ordered return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiffs-respondents E accordingly filed the suit in proper court on 26.11.1975. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the First Appeal and confirmed with modification the decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence this appeal. F On behalf of the appellants-defendants it was contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963; that the suit property belonged exclusively to the father of the plaintiffs-respon- dents and, therefore, the plaintiffs-respondents had no right to challenge the sale deed; that even assuming that the suit property was ancestral G house as the plaintiffs-respondents' father was the 'karta' of the Joint -·. Hindu family the sale deed executed by him was perfectly legal and valid and binding
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.