TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the sale of the joint family villages was supported by legal necessity so as to bind the family; (ii) whether the appellant who was a minor at the date of the sale deed was nevertheless bound by the transaction because it was executed by the father as manager of the family; and (iii) whether the sale deed transferred the cultivating rights in sir lands within Section 49(1)(a) of the C. P. Tenancy Act, 1920.
Issue (i): whether the sale of the joint family villages was supported by legal necessity so as to bind the family.
Analysis: The consideration was substantially applied to antecedent family debts, land revenue, a mortgage decree and marriage expenses. For alienations by a manager of a joint Hindu family, the transferee is required to establish legal necessity for the transaction, not to prove the precise application of every rupee of the consideration. If the transaction itself is justified by necessity, the alienee is not bound to show how the whole consideration was subsequently spent.
Conclusion: The sale was supported by legal necessity and was binding on the family.
Issue (ii): whether the appellant who was a minor at the date of the sale deed was nevertheless bound by the transaction because it was executed by the father as manager of the family.
Analysis: The father was the manager of the joint family and executed the sale for family purposes. The fact that the minor joined as an executant did not alter the character of the transaction or prevent the manager from binding the family estate. A manager does not cease to act for the family merely because a junior member, even a major one, is also made to join in the deed for greater assurance to the transferee.
Conclusion: The minor appellant was bound by the sale because the father executed it as manager of the family.
Issue (iii): whether the sale deed transferred the cultivating rights in sir lands within Section 49(1)(a) of the C. P. Tenancy Act, 1920.
Analysis: The deed transferred the sir and khudkast lands together with "all rights and privileges." On a proper construction, those words were sufficient to show an express agreement to transfer the cultivating rights in the sir lands. The statutory requirement is that the transfer must be express, not merely implied. Reading the recital as limited to proprietary interest alone would make the concluding words meaningless.
Conclusion: The cultivating rights in the sir lands were transferred, and the appellants were not entitled to retain possession on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds, and the decree against the appellants was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a joint Hindu family alienation by the manager, proof that the transaction was entered into for family necessity is sufficient to bind the estate, and a deed transferring sir land with "all rights and privileges" satisfies a statutory requirement of express transfer of cultivating rights.
TaxTMI 
