Skip to content


Ram Charan and anr. Vs. MihIn Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914All23; (1914)ILR36All158
AppellantRam Charan and anr.
RespondentMihIn Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
joint hindu family - sale of family property by managing member for the benefit of the family--sate binding on minor members of the family. - - ' this is in accordance with the ruling of their lordahips of the privy council in the well-known case of hanoomanpersaud panday v. we see no reason to differ from this conclusion, but are on the contrary satisfied that the evidence supports it......true that gopal das was not the legal guardian of the plaintiffs, but if he was the manager of the joint property which belonged to him and his brothers and the transaction was for the benefit of the plaintiffs, it is binding on them. the law on the subject is thus stated in mayne's hindu law, vii edition, p, 225: 'where the act is done by a person who is not his guardian, but who is the manager of the estate in which he has an interest, he will equally be bound, if under the circumstances the step taken was necessary, proper or prudent.' this is in accordance with the ruling of their lordahips of the privy council in the well-known case of hanoomanpersaud panday v. hunraj koonweree (1856) 6 moo. i a 393 (412). that no doubt was a case of a mortgage, but the principle equally applies to.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs appellants for a declaration that a sale-deed executed by their brother Gopal Das in favour of the first defendant, Mihin Lal, on the 4th of January, 1910, was null and void and not binding on them. They allege that the property comprised in the sale belongs to the joint family, of which they, Gopal Das, their father Hoti Lal, and their grandfather Parbhu Lal, were members, and that Gopal Das had no authority to sell it without the concurrence of the plaintiffs. They further allege that the first defendant induced Gopal Das to make the sale by practising a fraud upon him and did not pay the amount which purported to be the consideration for the sale.

2. The court below has found against the plaintiffs. It was of opinion that Gopal Das was the manager of the family and that he sold the property in order to raise money to meet the expenses of the marriage of the sister of himself and the plaintiffs and to carry on a shop which jointly belonged to him and the plaintiffs. That court dismissed the suit.

3. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that Gopal Das was not their legal guardian and was not competent to sell the property on their behalf. Gopal Das purports to have executed the sale-deed of the 4th of January, 1910, as guardian of his minor brothers and also as manager and head of the joint family of which he and his brothers were members. It is true that Gopal Das was not the legal guardian of the plaintiffs, but if he was the manager of the joint property which belonged to him and his brothers and the transaction was for the benefit of the plaintiffs, it is binding on them. The law on the subject is thus stated in Mayne's Hindu Law, VII edition, p, 225: 'Where the act is done by a person who is not his guardian, but who is the manager of the estate in which he has an interest, he will equally be bound, if under the circumstances the step taken was necessary, proper or prudent.' This is in accordance with the ruling of their Lordahips of the Privy Council in the well-known case of Hanoomanpersaud Panday v. Hunraj Koonweree (1856) 6 Moo. I A 393 (412). That no doubt was a case of a mortgage, but the principle equally applies to the case of a sale ; See Mokanund Mondul v. Nafur Mondul (1899) I. L. R.' 26 Cale. 820.

4. [Alter discussing the evidence in the case, the judgment thus continues: ]

5. The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the consideration for the sale, which far exceeded the amount for which the property had been purchased, was actually received and applied partly towards the expenses of the marriage of the sister and partly in carrying on this shop. We see no reason to differ from this conclusion, but are on the contrary satisfied that the evidence supports it. In this view, Gopal Das being the manager of the property and the sale being to the advantage of the plaintiffs also, it is binding on them.

6. An argument was addressed to us to the effect that the property must be deemed to have been the joint property of Parbhu Lal and Hoti Lal, The lower court has found that it has not been proved that Parbhu Lal was interested in the property. We are not prepared to dissent from that conclusion. But even if it was joint property in which Parbhu Lal had an interest, since the sale was for valid purposes, it would attach to the interests of Parbhu Lal which came to Gopal Das and his brothers by right of survivorship.

7. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //