Appeal dismissed, joint family not bound by sale deed. Plaintiffs entitled to property share.

The appeal was dismissed with a modification regarding compensation for improvements. The sale deed (Ext. P2) was not upheld as binding on the joint family due to lack of necessity and inadequate consideration. The debts cited were not proven to be family debts, and the obligation to pay future kuri subscriptions did not constitute a debt. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover their 6/8th share in the property, subject to the value of improvements made by the alienee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of Property
2. Validity of Sale Deed (Ext. P2)
3. Necessity for Sale
4. Nature of Debt (Kuri Subscriptions)
5. Binding Nature of Debt on Joint Family
6. Improvements Made by Alienee

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of Property:
The court initially dealt with the ownership of the property in question. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was part of a Hindu Mitakshara joint family estate, inherited from their ancestors, and managed by Venkiteswara Mallan. The court confirmed that the property was indeed ancestral and belonged to the joint family, thereby giving the sons a right by birth to such property.

2. Validity of Sale Deed (Ext. P2):
The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the sale deed (Ext. P2) executed by Venkiteswara Mallan and the 4th defendant, arguing that it was unsupported by consideration and not for the benefit of the estate. The court found that the sale deed was not binding on the family as it lacked pressing necessity and adequate consideration. The court also noted that the sale price was not reflective of the property's true value, as determined by the Commissioner.

3. Necessity for Sale:
The court evaluated whether there was a pressing necessity for the sale. It was argued that the sale was executed to discharge debts and release other properties from security under a kuri mortgage deed (Ext. P7). However, the court found no evidence of such pressing necessity. The debts cited were not shown to be binding on the family, and the income from the properties could have been used to meet the obligations without selling the homestead.

4. Nature of Debt (Kuri Subscriptions):
A significant issue was whether the obligation to pay future kuri subscriptions constituted a debt. The court held that the obligation to pay future subscriptions did not amount to a debt. The future payments were contractual obligations rather than debts incurred. The court referenced the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Travancore, which stated that the obligation to pay future subscriptions is not a debt but a contractual obligation.

5. Binding Nature of Debt on Joint Family:
The court found no reliable evidence that the debts incurred by Venkiteswara Mallan were joint family debts. The first defendant's assertion that the debts were family debts was not supported by the pleadings or evidence. Consequently, the sale deed could not be justified as being executed for the discharge of antecedent debts binding on the joint family.

6. Improvements Made by Alienee:
The court acknowledged that the alienee (defendants 1 to 3) had made valuable improvements to the property. The decree provided for compensation for these improvements. The court clarified that the compensation should be based on the value of the improvements, not merely the cost, and should be assessed for the area to be surrendered to the plaintiffs.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with a modification regarding the compensation for improvements. The sale deed (Ext. P2) was not upheld as binding on the joint family due to lack of necessity and inadequate consideration. The debts cited were not proven to be family debts, and the obligation to pay future kuri subscriptions did not constitute a debt. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover their 6/8th share in the property, subject to the value of improvements made by the alienee.

---