Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Hindu Law Alienation of Ancestral Property Case, Holding Lower Court Decrees Unsustainable. The Court Rejected the Plea of Limitation Under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Confirmed the Suit House Was Ancestral Property, Though Final Operative Directions Were Not Available in the Provided Text.

Civil suit for declaration that registered sale deed executed by father in favour of appellants/defendants is void and inoperative, and for restoration of possession of suit house.

Plaintiffs sought declaration that the registered sale deed dated 30 May 1959 executed by their father in favour of the contesting defendants was void and inoperative, and restoration of possession of suit house bearing Municipal No 1153/1 situated in Rajgarh locality, Datia town, Madhya Pradesh.

Plaintiffs claimed the suit house was their ancestral property in which they had 3/4th undivided interest; their father had no right to transfer the suit house to the contesting defendants and consequently the sale deed was not binding on them.

Trial Court held the suit house was ancestral property with plaintiffs having 3/4th undivided interest and father 1/4th; directed plaintiffs be placed in joint possession with contesting defendants. High Court modified the decree by allowing plaintiffs' cross objections: plaintiffs entitled to possession, execution stayed for six months to allow contesting defendants to file a suit for general partition; if filed, stay continue till disposal, otherwise plaintiffs entitled to possession.

Whether the suit challenging the sale deed was barred by limitation under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 given the refiling in a competent court after return of plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Whether the suit house was ancestral property in the hands of the plaintiffs' father or self-acquired property of the father. Whether the sale deed executed by the father as karta of the joint Hindu family was valid and binding on the plaintiffs for legal necessity.

Contesting defendants argued the suit was barred by Article 109 of the Limitation Act because the original plaint was returned for pecuniary jurisdiction and refiled on 26 November 1975 beyond the twelve-year period; the suit house belonged exclusively to the father as self-acquired property; alternatively, the father as karta executed the sale deed for legal necessity and family requirement as recited in the deed, which was binding on plaintiffs; the suit was collusive filed after eleven and a half years, and plaintiffs stood by while defendants spent money on reconstruction and renovation. Respondent-plaintiffs argued both courts below concurrently found no legal necessity for the father to execute the sale deed; the father was not shown to have incurred debts or been in a stringent economic condition requiring sale; therefore the father could not legally alienate the plaintiffs' undivided 3/4th interest, and the concurrent findings called for no interference.

Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a twelve-year limitation for a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property from the date the alienee takes possession. The original suit was filed within limitation on 20 August 1970; refiling in the District Court on 26 November 1975 after return of plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The finding that the suit house was ancestral property in the hands of the father was well sustained. A sale by a father as karta of a joint Hindu family of ancestral property without legal necessity is not binding on coparceners.

Having carefully considered the aforesaid rival contentions we find that the judgment and decree as passed by Trial Court and as confirmed with modification by the Division bench of the High Court cannot be sustained. Article 109 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. 1963 provides for a period of limitation of twelve years for a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law who files a suit to set aside his father’s alienation of ancestral property and twelve years’ period begins from the date when alienee takes possession of the property. This contention was rightly not accepted by both the courts below for the simple reason that originally the suit was filed within limitation, but it was filed before a court which was found to be lacking in pecuniary jurisdiction and when it was re-filed before a competent court the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act enabling them to get exclusion of the time from 20th August 1970 to 22nd November 1975 when the High Court took the view that the suit should be returned for presentation to the proper court. Both the courts below have held that the suit house was an ancestral property in the hands of plaintiffs’ father, defendant no.6. This finding is well sustained on the record of the case and calls for no interference in this appeal. We, therefore, reject the contention canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants that the suit house was self-acquired property of defendant no.6.

Original suit Civil Suit No.13A of 1978 was filed by plaintiffs in the Court of District Judge, Datia, seeking declaration that sale deed dated 30 May 1959 was void and for restoration of possession. The Trial Court held the suit house ancestral, plaintiffs entitled to 3/4th interest, and directed joint possession. Contesting defendants filed First Appeal No.2 of 1979 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh; the Division Bench dismissed the appeal but allowed the plaintiffs' cross objections, modifying the decree to grant possession to plaintiffs with a six-month stay to allow contesting defendants to file a suit for general partition. The contesting defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

• Constitution of India: Article 136
• Limitation Act, 1963: Article 109, Section 14