https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193231 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. en-us Tue, 10 Jul 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:11:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193231 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Jul 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193231