1962 (4) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Family property sale upheld on legal necessity grounds; appeal dismissed with costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment. The sale of joint family property was upheld based on established legal ... - Issues Involved:1. Legal necessity for the sale of joint family property.2. Validity of the sale deed executed by a minor.3. Transfer of cultivating rights in sir lands under the sale deed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legal Necessity for the Sale of Joint Family Property:The appellants contended that there was no legal necessity for executing the sale deed since the family income was sufficient to cover expenses. The trial court found that Rs. 10,000 was required for marriages, Rs. 7,508-8-0 for paying creditors, Rs. 1,655-2-0 for land revenue, and the balance to satisfy a mortgage decree. The appellants' argument that a sum of Rs. 5,000 was not justified was rejected. The court emphasized that it is not necessary to show that every bit of consideration was applied for family necessity. The legal principle established by the Privy Council in cases like Sri Krishan Das v. Nathu Ram and Niamat Rai v. Din Dayal was cited, stating that the alience needs to establish the necessity for the transaction, not the application of every part of the consideration.2. Validity of the Sale Deed Executed by a Minor:The trial court found that appellant No. 1 was a minor at the time of the sale deed's execution, making it void concerning his interest. However, the sale was deemed binding on him because his father, Gorelal, the family manager, executed the sale deed. The court held that a manager does not cease to be one merely because a junior member, believed to be a major, also joined the transaction. The transaction's nature and purpose indicated that it was for family necessity, binding on all family members. This principle was supported by decisions in Gharib-Ullah v. Khalak Singh, Kanti Chunder Goswami v. Bisheswar Goswami, and Bijrai Nopani v. Pura Sundary Dasee.3. Transfer of Cultivating Rights in Sir Lands:The appellants argued that the sale deed did not explicitly transfer cultivating rights in sir lands, entitling them to retain possession under s. 49(1)(a) of the C. P. Tenancy Act. The court interpreted the sale deed, which mentioned transferring sir and khudkast lands along with 'all rights and privileges,' as including cultivating rights. The court rejected the narrow interpretation that these words only emphasized the proprietary interest. It concluded that the expression 'all rights and privileges' indicated a transfer of all interests, including cultivating rights. The court clarified that the statutory requirement for an express transfer does not necessitate a specific recital of cultivating rights but must be clear from the document's language.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment. The sale was upheld due to established legal necessity, the binding nature of the transaction executed by the family manager, and the comprehensive transfer of rights in the sale deed.