Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed two second appeals against a decree confirming an earlier sale of joint family property. The Court held the alienation was valid as the sale consideration was utilized for family welfare, and the alienees were bona fide purchasers for value. The appeals filed to restore default judgments were also disposed of.
What did the court decide?
Both second appeals dismissed; first appellate orders confirmed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 29.11.2016
Date of Verdict : 09.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
S.A.Nos. 248 & 249 of 1986
and C.M.P.Nos. 19785 and 19786 of 2016
1. Mani
2. Minor Dayalan
rep. By next friend
No.1 above ....Appellants in both SAs/
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Seethammal
2. Pandurangam
3. Navakoti Chettiar
4. Pichaikuppan ...Respondents in SA.248 of 1986/
Defendants
1. Navammal
2. Minor Annamalai
(Guardian by 1 st respondent)
3. Narayana Goundar
4. Govindaswami ...Respondents in SA.249 of 1986/
Defendants
Prayer in SA.No. 248 of 1986:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated passed on 17th day of October 1978 in A.S.No.39 of 1978 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore, South Arcot District against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirukoilur dated 04.10.1977 made in OS.No.40 of 1977.
Prayer in SA.No. 249 of 1986:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and Judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore dated 17.10.1978 in A.S.No.43 of 1978 against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirukoilur dated 04.10.1977 made in OS.No.40 of 1977.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the alienation of joint family property by the karta for the benefit of the family is binding on the minor children after they attain majority.
Whether the sale consideration was properly utilized for the benefit of the joint family to validate the sale.
Whether the second appeals filed against the first appellate decree warrant interference by the second appellate court.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mani
- appellant
Minor Dayalan
- respondent
Seethammal
- respondent
Pandurangam
- respondent
Navakoti Chettiar
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court