Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a declaratory suit filed by Beohar Rajendra Sinha and his three grandsons against the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking a declaration that three nazul plots were in their possession from time immemorial as Raiyat Sarkar, and that an order of the State Government refusing to recognise their possession was wrongful. While the family was joint, the appellant, as Karta, gave notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in January 1954. By the time the suit was instituted in July 1954, the family had undergone partition, and the appellant’s three grandsons were joined as co-plaintiffs. The State raised a preliminary objection that plaintiffs 2 to 4 could not institute the suit as no separate notice under Section 80 had been given on their behalf. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that the appellant had lost the right to represent the joint family as Karta at the time of institution due to severance of joint status, and the earlier notice could not enure to the benefit of the other plaintiffs, though on merits it found that the plaintiffs had proved possession for the statutory period of six years. The Supreme Court framed the core issue as whether the notice given by the Karta was sufficient to sustain the suit by all the divided coparceners. Examining the purpose of Section 80, the Court emphasised that the object is to give the government prior intimation of the claim so that it may decide whether to contest or settle. The Court observed that at the time the cause of action arose and the notice was given, the appellant was the admitted Karta and entitled to represent the joint family in all its affairs. The notice sufficiently indicated the nature of the claim and the relief sought. The subsequent partition did not change the character of the claim or prejudice the State. There was substantial identity between the person who gave the notice and the persons who brought the suit; the divided coparceners were deemed to be authors of the notice as much as the Karta. The Court concluded that the notice was valid and no fresh notice was required. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s finding on the notice point was reversed, thereby upholding the suit as maintainable.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Notice to Government under Section 80 - Sufficiency of Notice Given by Karta on behalf of Joint Family – Subsequently Divided Coparceners Joining as Plaintiffs – Whether Fresh Notice Necessary – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 80 – Appellant, then Karta of a Hindu Joint Family, gave notice under Section 80 in January 1954. After a partition, the suit was filed in July 1954 with the divided coparceners joined as plaintiffs. The High Court held the notice insufficient for the other plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that the notice given by the Karta, who at the time of giving notice was entitled to represent the joint family when the cause of action accrued, was sufficient in law; there was substantial identity between the person giving the notice and the persons bringing the suit. Divided coparceners must be deemed to be as much the authors of the notice as the Karta. No fresh notice was required.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, given by the Karta of a Hindu Joint Family before partition is sufficient to maintain a suit brought by the divided coparceners after partition, or whether fresh notice by the divided members is necessary.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the notice under Section 80 CPC given by the appellant as Karta in January 1954 was sufficient in law to sustain the suit brought by all the divided coparceners. There was substantial identity between the person giving the notice and the persons bringing the suit, and no fresh notice was required.
Law Points
- notice by karta of joint family under section 80 cpc sufficient for all coparceners even after partition
- substantial identity between notice-giver and plaintiffs
- divided coparceners deemed authors of notice
- cause of action accrued when family joint
- strict compliance not required if object of section is met
