Karta Can't Unilaterally Gift Substantial Portion Of Joint Family Property In Favour Of One Coparcener: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has recently held that a Karta does not have the authority to unilaterally transfer a substantial portion of the joint family property to one coparcener, to the exclusion of others. Justice AD Maria Clete held that such a gift would give exclusive benefit to one coparcener and would destroy the proprietary rights of other coparceners. “A unilateral gift of the whole or a substantial portion of joint family property, or of one entire item out of a limited corpus of joint family properties, in favour of one coparcener, amounts to a virtual partition by gift, a concept wholly unknown to Hindu law. Such an act confers a disproportionate and exclusive benefit upon one coparcener, destroys the equal proprietary rights of the other coparcener, and therefore falls entirely beyond the competence of the Karta,” the court said. The court also noted that a gift was outside the competence of the Karta and such gratuitous transfers could be made only in limited situations for legal necessity, benefit of estate, charitable purpose, gifts for a daughter's marriage, or indispensable duties. “Under Mitakshara law, the Karta is only the manager and representative of the joint family and does not possess an unfettered power of alienation over coparcenary property. His power is strictly limited to alienations made for legal necessity, benefit of estate, or indispensable duties. Even within these limited spheres, the power does not extend to making gratuitous transfers of joint family property. A gift, being a transfer without consideration, lies wholly outside the scope of the Karta's authority, except in narrowly recognised exceptions, such as reasonable gifts for pious or charitable purposes or gifts to a daughter at the time of marriage,” the court added. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Murugan Asari challenging an order of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgment and decree of the second Additional District Munisff Court, Kallakurichi. The original suit was filed by Asari's daughter (respondent in the appeal) for partition and separate possession. It was her case that Asari had sold the ancestral property and purchased another property out of the sale deeds. She also argued that Asari had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son without authority and that such unilateral disposition would defeat her lawful share. Asari, however, rejected the joint family character of the property and argued that the property was self-acquired, purchased out of his earnings as a carpenter. He also argued that the plaintiff (his daughter) was given sufficient seervarisai (marriage offering) at the time of her marriage. The trial court ruled that the property in question was ancestral joint family property and granted a preliminary decree for partition. This was confirmed by the first appellate court. Against this, Asari had approached the court. Asari also filed a miscellaneous petition to receive additional sale deed and settlement deed, and to raise additional grounds. The court observed that as per Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence could be accepted in appellate proceedings only in specific circumstances and the parties could not claim it as a right. These circumstances were as follows: Where the court below had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admittedWhere the party seeking to adduce additional evidence establishes that such evidence was not within his knowledge even after due diligenceWhere the appellate court itself requires the evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment orAny other substantial cause The court noted that none of the circumstances existed in the present case. The court also noted that though in the written statement Asari had pleaded that the property was self-acquired, in the affidavit filed along with the application for receiving additional evidence, Asari had pleaded that he had inherited the property after the death of his father. The court thus noted that if Asari was permitted to introduce additional document, it would amount to allowing him to shift the foundational plea in the appellate stage, allowing him to set up a new case. The court thus dismissed his application to receive additional evidence. The court noted that the property devolved upon Asari in 1954 upon the death of his father and became ancestral in his hands vis-à-vis his children. The court further noted that a coparcenary cae into existence upon the birth of his son and this coparcenary subsisted at the time of commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005.Thus, the court noted that Asari's daughter acquired coparcenary rights by operation of Section 6 of the amended Act. The court thus confirmed the findings of the courts that the suit properties were ancestral/coparcenary properties. The court held that the daughter, being one of the...

Karta Can't Unilaterally Gift Substantial Portion Of Joint Family Property In Favour Of One Coparcener: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Karta Can't Unilaterally Gift Substantial Portion Of Joint Family Property In Favour Of One Coparcener: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers