Hindu Law
Joint Family Property—Plaintiff has challenged the alienation made by his father the first defendant, under the gift/settlement deed which is a joint family property, in favour of the second defendant—Karta/Manager of a joint family property may alienate joint family property only in three situations, namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family—Alienation of joint family property under gift/settlement deed was not with the consent of all the coparceners—Where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of coparceners whose consent has not been obtained—Alienation of joint family property in favour of the second defendant was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff whose consent had not been obtained as a coparcener before the said alienation.
[Paras 11 & 12]
Joint Family Property—Plaintiff has challenged the alienation made by his father the first defendant, under the gift/settlement deed which is a joint family property, in favour of the second defendant—Question as to whether transfer of property made by first defendant in favour of the second defendant under gift/settlement deed was for a pious purpose—It is admitted by second defendant that gift/settlement deed is, in fact, a gift deed which was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant ‘out of love and affection’ and by virtue of which the second defendant was given a portion of the joint family property—A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose—Therefore, a deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’—It is irrelevant if such gift or settlement was made by a donor, i.e. the first defendant, in favour of a donee who was raised by the donor without any relationship, i.e. the second defendant—Gift deed in the instant case is not for any charitable or religious purpose—Settlement deed/gift deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was rightly declared as null and void by the First Appellate Court and the High Court—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 13 & 16]
Limitation Act, 1963
Article 58—Applicability of—Parties to the suit are Hindus and are governed by Mitkashara Law—Plaintiff has challenged the alienation made by his father the first defendant, under the gift/settlement deed which is a joint family property, in favour of the second defendant—Article 58 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for the period of limitation to file a suit to obtain any other declaration—Period of limitation under this article is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues—It is a residuary article governing all those suits for declaration which are not specifically governed by any other articles in the Limitation Act—Article 109 of the Limitation Act is the special Article to apply where the alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties are governed by Mitakshara Law—Where a statute contains both general provision as well as specific provision, the later must prevail—Article 58 of the Act has no application to the instant case.
[Paras 7 & 8]
Article 109—Applicability of—Conditions to be fulfilled—In order to attract Article 109 of the Limitation Act, the following conditions have to be fulfilled, namely, (1) the parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the father—Article 109 of the Act provides that period of limitation is twelve years from the date the alienee takes possession of the property.
[Para 9]
Article 109—Suit for partition and separate possession—Period of limitation—Gift/settlement deed was executed by father of plaintiff in favour of the second defendant on 02.03.1980 and second defendant has taken possession of property on 22.03.1980 when gift/settlement deed was registered—Counting the period of twelve years from 22.03.1980, the limitation for filing of the suit in the present case would have expired on 21.03.1992—Suit was filed on 11.10.1991—Suit was not barred by time.
[Para 10]
Words and Phrases
Alienation—Meaning under Article 109 of the Limitation Act—Word ‘alienation’ in Article 109 of the Limitation Act includes ‘gift’.
[Para 9]