Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose over the alienation of two agricultural lands bearing survey nos. 121 and 123 situated at village Kari, Taluka Majalgaon, originally owned by one Rambhau. Rambhau died about 25 years before the filing of the suit, leaving behind his wife Indrabai (respondent no.3, since deceased) and three sons—Nivrutti, Sopan, and Kishan. Kishan, the eldest son, was recorded as karta in the revenue records after attaining majority. On 3 September 1971, Kishan executed a sale deed for survey no.121 in favour of appellant no.1 Gopichand. Subsequently, on 26 October 1971, Kishan and Gopichand jointly executed a sale deed for both suit properties in favour of appellant no.2 Mahadu. On 14 February 1974, appellant no.2 further sold the lands to appellant no.3 Dattatraya. The plaintiffs (respondent nos.1 to 3) filed Special Civil Suit No.53 of 1977 on 2 April 1977 seeking partition and a declaration that the alienations made by Kishan were void and not binding on their shares. They contended that Kishan was illiterate, a minor at the time of the transactions, and of dissolute character, and that the sales were executed without legal necessity despite there being a famine. The defendants (appellants) denied the allegations, asserting that the sales were for legal necessity—to meet household expenses, clear debts, and improve the fallow lands—and that the plaintiffs nos.1 and 2 had consented to and attested the sale deed, thereby estopped from challenging it. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale was for legal necessity. On appeal, the III Additional District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.172 of 1981 reversed the trial court's decree on 31 July 1990, declaring that the alienations were not binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of their shares and that each plaintiff held a 1/4th share. Aggrieved, the original defendants nos.1 to 3 preferred the present second appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal on three substantial questions of law: (1) whether the conclusion regarding absence of legal necessity was reasonable based on the evidence on record; (2) whether the signatures of plaintiff nos.1 and 2 on the sale deed dated 26 October 1971 constituted estoppel against them; and (3) whether the suit was barred by limitation due to the alleged misstatement of ages in the plaint. The appellants argued that the first appellate court ignored other circumstances and evidence, including the recitals in the sale deed, the testimony of DW1 Eknath and DW2 Kishan Deshmukh, and the plaintiffs' own admission of famine. They contended that the plaintiffs' consent and signatures estopped them. The provided judgment text ends before the court's analysis and final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court's conclusion that the sale was not for legal necessity was reasonable based on evidence; whether the signatures of plaintiffs on the sale deed constitute estoppel against them; and whether the suit is barred by limitation due to alleged misstatement of ages.
Law Points
- Burden of proof to establish legal necessity for alienation of joint family property
- Estoppel by representation and consent of family members to sale
- Limitation period for challenging alienation based on minority and misstatement of age
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 11
SECOND APPEAL NO. 306 OF 1990
Shri R.B. Deshmukh, holding for Shri A.R. Kale, for appellants; Shri K.M. Babhulgaonkar, holding for Shri R.S. Deshmukh, for respondent nos. 1 and 2
Gopichand s/o Dagduba More, Mahadu s/o Hanwata Shindge, and Dattatraya s/o Eknath More (deceased) represented by Legal Representatives: Sakharam s/o Eknath More, Pralhad s/o Eknath More, Anant s/o Eknath More, Sitabai w/o Baburao Thombre, Gayabai w/o Balasaheb Misal, Haribai w/o Trimbak Wagh
Nivrutti s/o Rambhau Mali, Sopan s/o Rambhau Mali, Indrabai w/o Rambhau Mali (since deceased, appeal abated), Kishan s/o Rambhau Mali
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for partition and declaration that alienation of joint family properties by the eldest son were not binding on the other family members for want of legal necessity.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3) sought partition of family lands and declaration that sale deeds executed by defendant no.4 (respondent no.4) in favour of appellants were void and not binding on their shares.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant no.4, the eldest son and recorded karta, sold the suit lands without legal necessity while he was addicted to vices and that the alienations were obtained during a famine year despite no need for money.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the sale was for legal necessity; first appellate court reversed and decreed in favour of plaintiffs, declaring the alienations not binding and granting each plaintiff 1/4th share.
Issues
Whether the conclusion regarding absence of legal necessity is a reasonable conclusion based on evidence on record?
Whether the signatures of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 on the sale deed dated 26.10.1971 (Exh.34) amounts to representation and as such estoppel against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2?
Whether the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that the ages of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 given in the plaint are wrong and on that count the suit is barred by limitation?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the first appellate court ignored other circumstances and evidence on record, made much capital of the fact that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not enter into the witness box and thus did not prove legal necessity.
It was contended that the plaint specifically mentioned famine in 1972-73, and the sale deed (Exh.34) recited that the sale was for development of land and household expenses, showing legal necessity.
Appellants submitted that DW1 Eknath More and attesting witness DW2 Kishan Deshmukh gave evidence supporting legal necessity and consent of plaintiffs, and their testimony could not be brushed aside as they knew the family's difficulties.
It was argued that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 put their thumb impression and signature on the sale deed, thereby consenting and estopped from challenging the sale.
On limitation, it was urged that the ages of plaintiffs were wrongly shown in the plaint, rendering the suit barred by limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
This second appeal is filed by original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by III Additional District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 172 of 1981 decided on 31.7.1990 thereby reversing the judgment of dismissal of suit bearing R.C.S. No.53 of 1977 decided on 24.8.1981 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon and declaring that the alienation by original Defendant No.4 (Respondent No.4) in favour of present appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and subsequent alienation by appellant No. 2 in favour of appellant No. 3 (who all are original defendants Nos. 1 to 3) are not binding on the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) to the extent of their shares and further declaring that each of plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) had 1/4th share.
The trial court held that the sale was for legal necessity and dismissed the suit, whereas the first appellate court came to a conclusion that the sale was not for legal necessity.
It is also contended that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have put their respective thumb impression and signature on the sale deed. There are other witnesses on the sale deed and, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are estopped from challenging legality and validity of the sale as they have consented to the sale.
Procedural History
The suit R.C.S. No.53 of 1977 was filed on 2 April 1977 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon. The trial court dismissed the suit on 24 August 1981, holding that the sale was for legal necessity. The plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.172 of 1981, which was decided by the III Additional District Judge, Beed on 31 July 1990, reversing the trial court's decree and granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. The present second appeal No.306 of 1990 was filed by the original defendants. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law. During pendency, the appeal against respondent no.3 abated due to her death on 22 September 1993. The case was reserved for judgment on 6 April 2010 and pronounced on 9 April 2010.
