Gift Of Ancestral Property Of HUF Can Be For 'Pious Purpose' Only ; It Cannot Be 'Out Of Love & Affection': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a Hindu undivided Family has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose'.The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that the deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed 'out of love and affection' does not come within the scope of the term 'pious purpose'.The court also held that the term 'alienation' in Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, includes 'gift' also.Brief BackgroundIn this case, one K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (Plaintiff) filed a suit against his father K.S. Chinne Gowda and one K.C. Laxmana for partition and separate possession of his one third share in the suit schedule property and for a declaration that the gift/settlement executed by the first defendant K.S. Chinne Gowda in favour of the second defendant K.C. Laxmana as null and void. The schedule property belongs to the joint family consisting of himself, the first defendant and one K.C. Subraya Gowda. He contended that the first defendant had no right to transfer the schedule property in favour of the second defendant as he is not a coparcener or a member of their family. In his written statement, the first defendant stated that the second defendant was brought up by the first defendant and out of love and affection he settled the suit property in favour of the second defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Later, the Appellate court reversed it and decreed the suit. This judgment of appellate court was upheld by the Karnataka High Court by dismissing the second appeal filed by the defendants.Rival ContentionsBefore the Apex court in appeal, the defendants raised two contentions: (1) The transfer of property by way of settlement was for pious purpose which is permissible in law. (2) The suit was barred by limitation as Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the facts of the case. The plaintiff, on the other hand contended that (1) the alienation by way of gift of joint family property made by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was void. (2) The period of limitation for challenging such an alienation is twelve years from the date the alienee takes possession of the property under Article 109 of the 4 Second Schedule to the Limitation Act.Issues The court considered the following issues: (1) Whether Article 58 of Limitation Act has application to the instant case? (2) Whether the transfer of property made by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant for a pious purpose?Supreme Court's AnalysisArticle 58 has no application to the instant caseThe court observed that the Article 58 has no application to the instant case. It observed:Article 58 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for the period of limitation to file a suit to obtain any other declaration. The period of limitation under this article is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. It is a residuary article governing all those suits for declaration which are not specifically governed by any other articles in the Limitation Act. Article 109 is the special Article to apply where the alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties are governed by Mitakshara law. Generally, where a statute contains both general provision as well as specific provision, the later must prevail.The word 'alienation' in this article includes 'gift'.The court also added that the word 'alienation' in this article includes 'gift'. It noted that in order to attract Article 109, the following conditions have to be fulfilled, namely, (1) the parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the father. This article provides that the period of limitation is twelve years from the date the alienee takes possession of the property. Taking note of the relevant dates, the court concluded that the suit was not barred by time. Three Situations in which Karta can alienate joint family propertyThe court noted that a Karta/Manager of a joint family property may alienate joint family property only in three situations, namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family. The court further observed:"It is settled law that where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained (See : Thimmaiah and Ors. Vs. Ningamma and Anr.). Therefore, the alienation of the joint family property in favour of the second defendant...

Gift Of Ancestral Property Of HUF Can Be For 'Pious Purpose' Only ; It Cannot Be 'Out Of Love & Affection': Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags