Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a property dispute concerning 'Moti Building' in Jalna, consisting of four houses. The original plaintiffs, sisters of defendant No.3 Shankarlal, claimed that the suit property was ancestral and they had an equal share. Defendant No.3 sold the property to Bansilal Shivlal by registered sale deed dated 07.10.1965. After Bansilal's death, defendant Nos.1 and 2 inherited the property. In 1971, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed Civil Suit No.48/1971 against defendant No.3 and others for declaration of title and injunction, which was decreed in their favor on 31.01.1975, holding them as owners. The decree became final. Subsequently, the plaintiffs (sisters) filed a suit challenging the sale deed and the decree, alleging that the property was ancestral and they were not parties to the earlier suit. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested, raising defenses of limitation, maintainability, and that the sale by Karta was for legal necessity. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.10.1981, the First Appellate Court affirmed on 09.05.1988, and the High Court dismissed the second appeal on 19.12.2008. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings were binding, the sale by Karta for legal necessity was binding on all family members, and the suit was collusive filed at the instigation of defendant No.3 to avoid execution of the decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings - Binding Nature - The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court are binding on the Supreme Court unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 20-21) B) Hindu Law - Karta's Power of Alienation - Legal Necessity - Sale of ancestral property by Karta for legal necessity and benefit of family is binding on all coparceners, including sisters. The plaintiffs failed to plead or prove that the sale was not for legal necessity. (Paras 22-25) C) Civil Procedure - Collusive Suit - Maintainability - A suit filed at the instigation of the judgment-debtor to avoid execution of a valid decree is collusive and not maintainable. The plaintiffs admitted filing the suit at the behest of their brother, defendant No.3. (Paras 21, 26) D) Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit to Challenge Decree - Barred by Limitation - The suit challenging the decree dated 31.01.1975 was filed after three years and was barred by limitation. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' second appeal and upholding the dismissal of the suit challenging the sale deed and decree.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact binding on High Court and Supreme Court
- Sale by Karta for legal necessity binding on all coparceners
- Collusive suit not maintainable
- Limitation for challenging decree
- Maintainability of suit challenging decree
