Saturday 28 February 2015

Disposal of minor's property for legal necessity by natural guardian whether voidable?



Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 6 and 8-The necessity for a natural guardian to obtain permission or sanction from the Court before alienating the minor's property will not be attracted so far as the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property is concerned.
Section 8(3) of the Act lays down that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. When Section 8 does not take within its ambit the minors undivided interest in the joint family property, Section 8(3) would not be applicable.
The recitals of legal necessity in a deed do not by themselves prove legal necessity. The recitals are, however, admissible in evidence, their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into. The recitals may be used to corroborate other evidence of the existence of legal necessity. The weight to be attached to the recitals varies according to the circumstance.
What the alienee is required to establish is legal necessity for the transaction and it is not necessary for him to show that every bit of the consideration which he advanced was actually applied for meeting family necessity. The reason is that the alienee can rarely have the means of controlling and directing the actual application of the money paid or advanced by him unless he enters into the management himself.
The natural guardian of a minor has the necessary competence to deal with even the separate property of the minor. Nonetheless the natural guardian remains a guardian of the minor in other senses also. Natural guardian who has a share in the property along with the minors' undivided interest in the property is legally competent to alienate the property as a whole, either in the capacity of the minor's guardian or as a Manager.
Karnataka High Court
A. Chidananda (Deceased) By L.Rs. ... vs Smt. Lalitha V. Naik And Ors. on 19 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Kant 128, 2006 (2) KarLJ 67,2006(3)KCCR1403

Bench: H G Ramesh
1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore in R.A. No. 42 of 1989 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur in O.S. No. 36 of 1984.
2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 27-2-1981 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3 and for partition of plaint 'B' schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, they along with defendants 1 and 2 are governed by Hindu School of Mitakshara law. The propositus one Vasudev Naik died in the year 1972 leaving behind plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff 1 is the son and plaintiff 2 is the daughter of Vasudev Naik and defendant 1 is the wife and defendant 2 is the son of Vasudev Naik and their family had certain immovable properties as described in 'B' Schedule. In the year 1962 the suit Schedule 'C' properties were allotted to the branch of plaintiffs' father in the registered partition deed dated 1-9-1962 and as such, the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are each entitled for 5/12th share and 2nd plaintiff and 1st defendant are entitled for l/12th share each in the entire properties on the death of Vasudev Naik. Plaintiff 1 was born on 4-4-1963 and plaintiff 2 was born on 29-9-1966 and at the time of death of Vasudev Naik both the sons were minors and the 1st defendant who was not aware of the worldly affairs being a innocent villager did not deal with the properties in a prudent manner and the 3rd defendant taking advantage of the same prevailed upon the 1st and 2nd defendants to execute the sale deed of the entire family properties which are morefully described in the 'B' schedule for a meager sum of Rs. 40,000/- by a registered sale deed dated 27-2-1981. As per the said document out of the sale price of Rs. 40,000/-, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by the 3rd defendant to one Madhavan Nair and his wife Sarojini towards the consideration of alleged sale deed by them in favour of the 1st defendant.
A sum of Rs. 9,500/- said to have been paid earlier to the sale deed to the other defendants which is false and also a sum of Rs. 10.500/- said to have been paid to defendant 1 before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed and defendant J. executed the sale deed as a guardian of the plaintiffs also. Stating that defendant 1 cannot alienate the plaintiffs share when they were minors without the permission of the Competent Court and that defendant 1 actually has not acted in the best interest of the plaintiffs and their properties and caused loss to the plaintiffs in order to favour defendant 3 and the said sale deed is void and the act of defendants 1 and 2 are not prudent and the said sale deed is not acted upon as the defendant 3 prevailed on defendants 1 and 2 to have an agreement for sale of the properties for a sum of Rs. 85,000/-and he managed to obtain the signature of 1st plaintiff even though he was minor and that agreement also contained false recitals and defendant 3 posing himself as a well-wisher of the family by playing fraud got the sale deed executed without paying any consideration and the market value of the property is not less than Rs. 1,25,000/- and the value of the house situated in the property is not less than Rs. 50,000/-, as such the sale deed executed in favour of defendant 3 by defendants and 2 is void and illegal and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiff's 1 and 2 have claimed their 5/12th and 1/12th share respectively in the 'B' Schedule properties. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 and defendant 3 separately. According to defendants 1 and 2, defendant 3 prevailed upon defendants 1 and 2 and obtained the document by playing fraud and misrepresentation and the sale price is nominal and accordingly, supported the case of the plaintiffs. The contesting 3rd defendant resisted the suit denying all the averments made therein and according to him the suit is filed to make unlawful gain and wrongful loss to defendant 3 and that defendants 1 and 2 are colluding with the plaintiffs at the instigation of other persons. According to him, apart from 'B' schedule properties there are some more properties situated at Amara Mudnoor Village of Sujlia Taluk. He denied that some properties were allotted to Madhava Nayak, the branch of plaintiffs father as per partition deed dated 1-9-1962 and that there is no property as mentioned in plaint 'C' schedule and further contended that plaintiffs are not having any share as claimed by them. According to defendant 3 the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are living together as joint family members and also they have purchased some other properties out of the sale proceeds of the suit properties and that the suit is also bad for partial partition as the plaintiffs have not included the properties which they have purchased in Amar Mudnoor Village. Further, it is his contention that plaintiffs have to prove their date of birth as in the month of January 1989 it was represented by plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 that they are majors and as such they have entered into agreement of sale. Further, it is submitted defendant 3 was stranger to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and he has been deceived by them and that 2nd defendant pressed this defendant to purchase the property and with the help of one Gopala Krishnayya, defendants 1 and 2 arranged to sell the properties to this defendant and they were also in search of prospective buyers to sell the properties and the property owned by the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were not situated in the compact block and defendants 1 and 2 could not properly maintain and improve the properties and also they could not discharge the antecedent debts incurred for their livelihood and that on 5-1-1981 defendants 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement with one Gopalakrishna Bhat for purchase of property and Rs. 15,000/- has been paid as an advance by defendants 1 and 2 out of the money received from 3rd defendant and on the same day the 1st plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an agreement for sale of the properties for Rs. 85,000/- and Rs, 20,000/- was paid in advance to the plaintiff 1 and defendants 1 and 2 and apart from Rs. 20,000/- paid at the time of agreement, since the defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiffs pressed the 3rd defendant to pay some more amount in order to discharge their debts, he paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 on 14-1-1981 and the same has been endorsed on the agreement. Subsequently, defendants 1 and 2 forced this defendant to pay some more money and at that time, he insisted to arrange for sale of the property stating that he would not be in a position to pay more money, as such, the defendants 1 and 2 approached Gopalakrishnayya and Madhava Nair to sell the latter's property and the property of latters' wife to defendants 1 and 2. The said Gopalakrishnayya persuaded Madhava Nair to purchase the property of one Gopalakrishna Bhat.
Consequently, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to purchase the property at Amara Mudnoor offering the property of Gopalakrishna Bhat situated at Kunthkunja Village of Madhavan Nair. When defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiff 1 agreed to execute the sale deed, defendant 1 acted as a guardian of the minor plaintiffs. Although, the plaintiff 1 himself has posed as a major at the time of agreement, as he was a minor defendant 1 executed the sale deed as his guardian. The sale deed by Madhavan Nair as well as by his wife was fixed at Rs. 14.000/- and Rs. 6,000/-respectively to save money. In order to reduce stamp duty and also to adjust to the sale deed to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 for the sale of plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant, the amount was shown as Rs. 40,000/- although the 3rd defendant has virtually paid Rs. 85,000/- as a sale consideration and he was also advised that two persons being majors entitled to half share and two persons being minor entitled to other half share and the value of the property purchased by this defendant should be shown as double the value of the property to be purchased by his vendors namely, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, as such, the payment of Rs. 45.000/-was not shown in the sale deed. Defendant 1 being the manager of the family as also the natural guardian she was entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of the joint family property and the sale deed executed by her is valid since it was for the benefit and necessity of the family and there is no need of taking permission of the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed as there was legal necessity to sell the property for discharging the debts incurred by the father of the plaintiffs and also a debt was cleared by selling a portion of the property and also there was a decree against the plaintiffs family in respect of the loan borrowed from the Co-operative Society. Since they had no money to discharge the loans they had to sell the suit property, as such, the sale is binding on the plaintiffs and no fraud has been practiced. Based on the pleadings the Trial Court has raised as many as 16 issues. After the trial and hearing the parties, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs in R.A. No. 42 of 1989 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore. The said Court also has dismissed the appeal while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.
3. At the time of admission on 2-4-2001, the following substantial question of law was raised for consideration:
Whether the property of the deceased Vasudeva Naik inherited by the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 remained as Hindu Joint Family or the parties inherited as tenants in common in view of Section 6(1) proviso of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and if the parties have inherited as tenants in common whether the alienation made by defendants 1 and 2 is valid and binding on the plaintiffs and whether the suit of the plaintiffs in the circumstances could have been decreed?
It is the argument of the appellant's Counsel that the suit property ought not to have been sold by the mother of the plaintiffs as the share of the plaintiffs in their father's share i.e., Vasudeva Naik, has to be treated as the separate property and self-acquired property of the plaintiffs. As such, the sale made to that extent without the permission of the Court, is not binding. Further, learned Counsel emphasised on the fact that there was fraud played in getting the sale deed executed in his favour by the 3rd defendant and that, both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the documents produced to hold that it is the self-acquired property and does not form part of joint family property. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the respective share of 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant in the undivided interest of the joint family is the property that is to be inherited through their father Vasudeva Naik on his death and has to be treated as self-acquired property and they should be treated as tenants in common and not joint tenancy. Further, it is also argued that the 1st defendant-mother has not acted as a Kartha but only as a natural guardian and without permission of the Court, she could not have alienated the suit property. In support of her argument learned Counsel relied on the following decisions:
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur 3 Chander Sen ;
Kastura Sahuani v. Das Seth and Anr. AIR 1976 On. 60 (sic) ;
P. Govinda Reddy and Ors. v. Golla Obulamma ;
Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar Accordingly, she prayed for setting aside the orders of the Court below.--
4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that it is a collusive suit between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 to see that the sale made by the defendants in favour of 3rd defendant is frustrated. Although plaintiffs have pleaded that there is fraud played by the 3rd defendant, both the Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiffs have failed to prove the fraud or misrepresentation. It is further argued that whether the suit property is joint family property or separate property, the 1st defendant-mother acting on behalf of the minors i.e., plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 2nd defendant in the capacity of a manager or guardian, could very well alienate the suit property of necessities or to discharge antecedent debts. Accordingly it is submitted that question of recognising 1/4th share of defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the share of Vasudeva Naik would not arise so as to consider it as a separate property and that it could be been alienated since no permission of the Court is necessary as is held by the Division Bench of this Court. In support of his case, learned Counsel relied upon the decisions in:
Gangoji Rao and Anr. v. H.K. Channappa and Ors. 1983 (1) Kar. L.J. 177;
Rajasekhar and Ors. v. Siddalingappa and Ors. (DB) Kishore v. Ahmed and Ors.
And submitted that there is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below in this regard and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
5. In the instant case, as a matter of fact, the property in question was sold in favour of 3rd defendant either for discharge of antecedent debts or for other necessities and it appears, two properties are said to have been acquired for the benefit of the family by the 1st defendant acting in the capacity of a Manager or guardian of the family. In fact, it is also the case of 3rd defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration to declare that the suit property sold in favour of 3rd defendant by defendants 1 and 2 is null and void and also for partition of the suit property and the suit ought to have been dismissed in limine since all the properties are not brought into the common hotchpot for the purpose of partition. At this stage, it is the argument of the appellants' Counsel that they have questioned only the sale of the property by other defendants in favour of 3rd defendant and as such, the suit is maintainable. It has to be noted that the suit filed is not for a mere declaration, it is also a suit for partition and in the circumstances, the plaintiffs should have brought all the properties into the common hotchpot. This aspect has been referred only incidentally although it does not require any comments by me.
6. The Trial Court has held that the property in 'D' schedule in the written statement was shown to be acquired from the sale proceeds of the plaint 'B' schedule properties. Simultaneously it has held that the sale deed dated 27-2-1981 by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant was not a result of fraud and undue influence. On the other hand, it has held while answering issue 4, that the sale deed executed is for family necessities and is binding on the plaintiffs. It has also held that the sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- shown in the sale deed dated 27-2-1981 is for the purpose of saving stamp duty. While answering issue 6, the Court below has held that in fact, the 3rd defendant is said to have paid a consideration of Rs. 85,000/- to purchase the suit property. Accordingly, it was of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the sale deed executed in favour of 3rd defendant cancelled,
7. The detailed discussion made by the Courts below in answering the issues and points for determination would show that the case has been dealt as per the evidence and the pleadings. This second appeal is filed seeking for setting aside the sale of the entire suit schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant invoking Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 as well as the provisions of Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
8. The first line of argument of the appellants' Counsel is, the property of the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant which is dealt with by 'the 1st defendant is without the permission of the Court as per Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and as void and non est and does not bind the plaintiffs. The second line of argument is that even assuming the 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant are coparceners with Vasudeva Naik their deceased father, their share of the property could be treated as coparcenary property. But insofar as the share of the property of the deceased father that is to be inherited by the 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant to the extent of l/3rd share, the same should be treated as separate property and it should not have been the subject-matter of sale and to that extent, they are entitled to relief.
9. To contend that this property is not the property of the joint family or joint tenancy and to contend that this property is held only as tenants in common, learned Counsel relied upon certain decisions. Let me quote the ratio laid down therein.
10. In the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, the Supreme Court has held as under:
It would be difficult to hold today that the property which devolved on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in Class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property and vis-a-vis son and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept could be applied or contemplated. It may be mentioned that heirs in Class I of Schedule under Section 8 of the Act included widow, mother, daughter of predeceased son etc. The express words of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be ignored and must prevail. The preamble to the Act reiterates that the Act is inter alia, to 'amend' the law. With that background, the express language which excludes son's son but included son of a predeceased son cannot be ignored.
11. In Kastura Sahuani's case, the Orissa High Court has held that on the death of the father, after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the father's interest would devolve on his heir and the property held by such heirs is not as joint tenants but it will be as tenants in common.
12. In Yudhishter's case referred above, while referring to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Supreme Court has held thus:
The ancestral house which devolves on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would not be HUF property in his hand vis-a- vis his own sons. But, it will be his individual property. Therefore, the property which devolved upon the father of the respondent in the instant case on the demise of his grandfather could not be said to be HUF property, and as such the respondent was a licensee of his father in respect of the ancestral house.
13. In P. Govinda Reddy's case, the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 'the devolution of interest of mortgagee on his heirs being by way of succession under the rules of the Hindu Succession Act, all the heirs who have got interest whether as coparceners or otherwise are tenants in common in relation to that interest and they as heirs, jointly interested in the mortgage amount should have brought their suit jointly.... Fact that the plaintiff is kartha of the joint family property will not avail where the asset is not a joint family asset or cannot be treated as such or has ceased to be so by reason of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,
14. In the decision in Gangoji Rao's case relied upon by the respondent, this Court referring to Sections 6, 8, 11 and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, held that 'the words 'joint family property' used under the Act is as per Sections 6 and 8 is wider in its connotation than the restricted sense in which it is used in the ordinary Hindu Law and in view of what is contained in Section 12 of the Act, the mother who is the natural guardian of the minor also becomes the Manager of the properties of her sons under the Act and as such, she can alienate the properties of the minors for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate as a Manager or Kartha of the hindu coparcenary can do and previous permission of the Court is not necessary under Section 8. A natural guardian empowered to manage the property of her minor son cannot be described as a guardian de facto and hence Section 11 would not apply'.
15. In Rajasekhar's case, the Division Bench of this Court, referring to Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, has held:
It is plain that a minor's undivided interest in the joint family property does not fall within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act, When that is so, Section 8 dealing with the powers of a natural guardian and laying down the necessity for a natural guardian to obtain permission or sanction from the Court before alienating the minor's property will not be attracted so far as the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property is concerned. Section 8(3) of the Act lays down that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. When Section 8 does not take within its ambit the minors undivided interest in the joint family property, Section 8(3) would not be applicable.
16. Further, in the decision in Kishore's case, referring to the recitals in the deed, this Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Rani and Anr. v. Smt. Santa Bala Debnath and Ors. and Radhakrishnadas and Anr. v. Kaluram (dead) by L.Rs and Ors. , regarding burden of proof on the part, of the alienee is concerned, wherein in Rani's case, it is observed that the recitals in a deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove legal necessity. The recitals are, however, admissible in evidence, their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into. The recitals may he used to corroborate other evidence of the existence of legal necessity. The weight to be attached to the recitals varies according to the circumstance. In Radhakrishnadas case, it is observed that it is now well-established that what the alienee is required to establish is legal necessity for the transaction and it is not necessary for him to show that every bit of the consideration which he advanced was actually applied for meeting family necessity. The reason is that the alienee can rarely have the means of controlling and directing the actual application of the money paid or advanced by him unless he enters into the management himself.
17. In the instant case, it is noted that the suit property is sold by the 1st defendant along with 2nd defendant who is said to be the minor son at the time of execution of the sale deed and he is also a signatory to the sale deed and it appears, representing to be a major he has done so and after ascertaining that he is minor, he is shown to be treated as a nominee. The sale of the suit property binds the 1st defendant, on the death of her husband, and on her minor children. It is the submission of the appellants' Counsel that there is no whisper that she sold the property as a Manager of the family and as such, she has no right to alienate the joint family property and the property that is sold is the share of Vasudeva Naik which should be treated as separate property and should not be made available for alienation either for family necessity. It is also argued that no where there is a mention in the recitals that the sale is for the welfare of the children and as such, the sale is not binding on the plaintiffs.
18. As per the material available on record, as a simultaneous transaction for the sale made in favour of 3rd defendant by defendants 1 and 2 jointly, some other properties are shown to have been purchased on behalf of the joint family of 1st defendant. Apart from that, it is also mentioned that antecedent debts of the family are also discharged. It is pertinent to note in this context that defendants 1 and 2 being the mother and brother of the plaintiffs, have tried to support the case of the plaintiff rather than come out with the real fact in disposing of the suit property. Moreover, as a matter of fact finding, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the suit property was not sold to the 3rd defendant either by playing fraud or by misrepresentation. Having considered the evidence on record, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that some of the properties were purchased by 1st defendant out of the sale proceeds of the suit property sold to 3rd defendant and for discharging the antecedent debts of the family. The 3rd defendant was not the manager of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. He is a stranger to the said family and although he is the purchaser of the suit property, as is contemplated by him, some properties were said to have been purchased by 1st defendant on behalf of the joint family consisting of defendants 1 and two of her minor sons and a daughter. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Minority arid Guardianship Act, the natural guardian shall not without previous permission of the Court, dispose of any immovable property in contravention of Sub-section (1) or (2) of the said section. What Sub-section (1) of Section 8 contemplates is, that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate. But the guardian in no case can bind the minor by a personal covenant. As a matter of fact finding, both the Courts below have held that the property was sold by the 1st defendant as a natural guardian and also in the absence of any such male member, she would very well act as a Manager and in that capacity, to meet out exigencies and also to discharge the antecedent debts of the family, she has sold the property which cannot be said to be either unreasonable or not necessary. Moreover, it appears for the benefit of the family after selling the suit property out of the amount realised, she also invested the money on purchasing two other properties. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the same was in contravention of Section 8 of the Act or no permission is required as per Section 8. Moreover, as is held by the Division Bench, the natural guardian of a minor has the necessary competence to deal with even the separate property of the minors. Nonetheless the natural guardian remains a guardian of the minors in other senses also. It is also emphasised that natural guardian who has a share in the property along with the minors' undivided interest in the property is legally competent to alienate the property as a whole. In fact, although the share of the plaintiffs in their father's share namely, Vasudeva Naik's share has to be treated as a separate property as is canvassed by the appellants' Counsel, but, it remains as an undivided interest as no partition has taken place. Under such circumstance, as is held by the Division Bench of this Court, there is legal competence to alienate the property as a whole by the guardian of the minor either in the capacity of the minor's guardian or as a Manager. In view of the same, as argued by the appellants' Counsel that to the extent of l/12th share i.e., the share of the plaintiff in the share of their father is to be treated as a separate property and not as joint tenants but as tenants in common which has been alienated by the 1st defendant and the same has to be held as valid and binding on the plaintiff in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.
19. The distinction that has been made in the decision of the Apex Court while identifying the property under Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is concerned is that, it was for the purpose of taxation and the Apex Court has held that such property is derived as a separate property and should not be treated as inclusive in computing the net wealth of the son's joint family. In the decision in Commissioner of Wealth Tax cited above, the case was that of a partition of the joint family business between the father and his only son and thereafter, they continued the business in the name of the partnership. After the death of the father, the amount standing to the credit of the deceased father in the account of the firm devolved on his son. The Wealth Tax Authorities while assessing the wealth tax in respect of the family of the son, included the amount in computing the wealth and the Court held that since the son inherited the wealth as an individual and not as kartha of the family, the same could not be included in computing the net income. In the instant case what is noticed is, there is an undivided interest in the joint family and even if it is the private property and has to be treated as private property of the minor, that could also be dealt with by the natural guardian as is held by the Division Bench of this Court. The decision referred to by the appellants' Counsel is altogether in a different context and does not apply to the case on hand. In view of the above, the argument of the appellants' Counsel that l/3rd share of the plaintiffs ought not have been the subject-matter of sale and does not bind them holds no water. In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law raised are answered in favour of the respondents.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment