In a second appeal against a suit for cancellation of sale deeds, the Single Bench held that the father was competent to execute the deeds, no District Judge permission was needed as the Court could interpret the property as joint, and legal necessity for sale was established. Appeal dismissed.
Second Appeal No. 1802 of 1981 was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Reserved on 15.03.2021 Delivered on 19.07.2021
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1802 of 1981 Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- Yagya Datt Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tandon,Satya Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- R.S.Sharma,R. Sharma,S.K.Mehrotra
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
2
executed by Raj Kumar Jain (defendant no.5) in favour of Har Narain (defendant no.1). The plaintiffs/appellants further prayed that the defendants/respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs/appellants.
3
place amongst them. Late Guru Datt was insane since long and had been under treatment at Agra and other places. Har Narain (defendant no.1) (since deceased) was a neighbour of Guru Datt, who was a cunning man, who took advantage of the poverty and insanity of Guru Datt and by misleading him, he without obtaining necessary permission from District Judge, got the sale deeds executed in his favour on 03.12.1963, 05.05.1959 for Rs.2000/-,11.05.1964 for Rs.1000/- and 04.11.1966 for Rs.1000/- in respect of property in dispute, which was a meager sale consideration.
4
Datt in a state of conscious mind for the benefit of his family members and for legal necessity. Guru Datt and his two brothers were owners to the extent of 1/3 share each in the disputed property.
5
favour of Har Narain for legal necessity and the southern 1/3 share was also sold by them on 04.11.1966 for Rs.1000/- to Har Narain.
6
in her testimony, which can prove that Guru Datt was insane.
7
sale deed from the District Judge under Section 8 of the Act, 1956. As admittedly, the plaintiffs/appellants are claiming share in joint family property and it is not their exclusive share, thus, Section 8 of the Act, 1956 is not attracted in the case in hand.
8
incompetent to execute the sale deeds. He further submitted that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that no permission as envisaged under Section 8 of the Act, 1956 is required before execution of sale deed.
9
him. The said finding has been affirmed by the appellate court.
10
If the Manager and Karta is a father, he has certain additional powers of alienation under Hindu Law and in exercise of those powers he can alienate joint family property so as to bind the interest of his minor sons in such ancestral property. The evidence on record establishes that the sale of the property was for the benefit and for legal necessity and, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the findings of the court below on Issue no.3.
11
appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.07.2021 NS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sale deeds executed by the appellant were valid considering the mental condition of the father.
Whether District Judge permission is required for alienation of joint family property by the manager.
Whether there was legal necessity for the sale of the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar
Yagya Datt
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
