Balmukand v. Kamla Wati, AIR 1964 SC 1385

Cases referred:

• Sital Prasad Singh v. Ajablal Mander

Introduction-

As the head of a Hindu joint family, a Karta wields extensive authority in the management of the joint family’s affairs. In this role, the powers of the Karta encompass the management, maintenance, and disposal of joint family property, as well as the representation of coparceners in legal matters. Furthermore, a Karta, serving as both manager and leader of a Hindu joint family, possesses the entitlement to dispose of any undivided share held by coparceners in the joint family property, including that of minor coparceners, without requiring prior court approval.

Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (“the Act”), stipulates that “when a minor holds an undivided interest in joint family property managed by an adult family member, there shall be no appointment of a guardian for the minor’s undivided share in the coparcenary property.” Nevertheless, it is essential to note that the Karta’s right to dispose of the undivided share of minor coparceners is not without limitations. This article will now delve into the prevailing restrictions on this right.

Facts of the case-

• On October 1, 1943, a 23/120th share in the land owned by Devishai was purchased by Balmukund (the plaintiff). Consequently, the ownership of 17/20th shares of this land was acquired by him.
• The remaining 3/20th share is currently held by the joint Hindu family, of which Pindidas was the Manager, and his brothers, Haveliram Khemchand and Satyapal, were the members. The land purchased from Devishai was acquired by the plaintiff at a rate of Rs. 175 per marla.
• To consolidate his holdings, the plaintiff aimed to obtain the 3/20th share held by the joint family of Pindidas and his brothers. Therefore, in this matter, Pindidas was approached by him, and Pindidas agreed to sell the family’s 3/20th share at the rate of Rs. 250 per marla.
• The contract was executed on October 1, 1945, involving Pindidas, and an earnest payment of Rs. 100 was made to him.
• The sale deed was not executed in favor of the plaintiff by Pindidas, who was the family’s manager. 
• Consequently, the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit for specific performance and included Pindidas and his brother as defendants.
• Both the trial court and the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for specific relief. In response to this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the High Court.

Issue:

Is there a valid legal argument supporting Pindidas’ failure to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff, despite their prior agreement to sell the 3/20th share of the joint family’s land at a specific rate?

Arguments:

The Petitioner contended that

In a Hindu joint family, an injunction against the Karta, preventing the alienation of the coparcenary property, cannot be sought by coparceners11. However, challenges to the Karta’s alienation can be initiated by coparceners based on the absence of legal necessity or benefit of the estate12. Additionally, a minor coparcener can also initiate a lawsuit challenging the Karta’s alienation within three years after reaching majority13. If the Karta alienates the undivided share of the minor without legal necessity or benefit of the estate, the transaction becomes voidable to the extent the coparcener is aggrieved14.

The responsibility of proving legal necessity or benefit of the estate, or conducting a diligent inquiry to confirm its existence, falls upon the purchaser of the joint family property15. If this is established, then no coparcener retains the right to challenge the Karta’s alienation16. Nevertheless, the purchaser is relieved of this burden of proof if the aggrieved coparcener does not assert the absence of legal necessity or benefit of the estate in the Karta’s alienation17.

 Judgement:

Mudholkar, J., concluded that when the transaction is opposed by the adult members of the family, no portion of the joint family property could be disposed of or agreed to be disposed of by the manager on the grounds of alleged benefit to the family. Consequently, the suit for specific performance was dismissed.

Conclusion:

According to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, although joint family property is enjoyed collectively by coparceners from birth, they do not have the right to possess it exclusively and absolutely. A fiduciary relationship exists between the Karta and the coparceners in the joint family, resulting in a broad range of powers being exercised by the Karta in the management, maintenance, and alienation of the joint family property. The concepts of legal necessity and benefit of the estate serve as a system for checking and balancing to prevent the misuse of power by the Karta. This ensures and maintains a robust equilibrium between the Karta’s powers and the rights of the coparceners.

Drafted by: Jhalak Varshney, Lloyd Law college, Greater Noida, an intern under legal vidhiya

Admin