SHEONANDAN PRASAD SAO VS UGRAH SAO AND ORS 31ST AUGUST, 1959
| OVERVIEW OF THE CASE | |
| Case Name | Sheonandan Prasad Sao vs Ugrah Sao And Ors. |
| Citation | A.I.R 1960 Pat 66 |
| Date of Judgement | August 13, 1997 |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Petitioner | Sheonandan Prasad |
| Respondent | Ugrah Sao And Ors |
| Bench | V Ramaswami, K Singh |
Introduction
The issue on appeal is whether the sale of an undivided share by a coparcener of a joint Hindu family subject to Mitakshara law results in the severance of the joint status, making the other coparceners separate and the remaining share of the alienating coparcener subject to succession to his heirs rather than survival to the other coparceners. The following are the pertinent facts that give birth to this query:
Brothers Shyamlal Sao and Rangi Sao formed a single Hindu family under Mitakshara law. The combined family owned, among other things, a 1904 plot in the Patna district’s Masaurhi Bazar hamlet with a gola standing there. The two brothers had established a number of usufructuary mortgages thereupon. Defendants 1 through 12 attached the entire gola and the land adjacent thereto and put it up for sale as part of their enforcement of their monetary judgement against Shyamlal.
Rangi Sao objected, claiming that the decree did not apply to him and that his share of the gola home was exempt from attachment and sale. The executing Court ordered that only the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor, Shyamlal Sao, would be sold in its order of January 31, 1931. As a result, the sale proclamation advertising for sale of solely Shyamlal’s right, title, and interest was published, subject to any earlier encumbrances. On July 11, 1931, the decree-holders themselves bought the property.
Facts of the case
- Sheonandan Prasad Sao and Ugrah Sao were at odds over who owned the land.
- Sheonandan Prasad Sao asserted that he had owned the land for a number of years and had acquired it from the previous owner.
- Sheonandan Prasad Sao was not entitled to the land, according to Ugrah Sao, who asserted that it had been in his family for many centuries.
- Despite Sheonandan Prasad Sao’s appeal to the Patna High Court, the lower court’s judgement to rule in favour of Ugrah Sao stood.
- The High Court finally found in Sheonandan Prasad Sao’s favour, concluding that he had acquired the land and had owned it for long enough to establish his ownership
- Sheonandan Prasad Sao was given the go-ahead to have Ugrah Sao leave the property and pay compensation.
Issues
Who will be the owner of the property ?
Contentions
Arguments from the petitioner- The knowledgeable Munsif ruled that the defendants had only obtained an eight anna interest in the contested site, with the plaintiffs owning the remaining half. The plaintiffs were allowed to reclaim possession of plot 1904 because, according to his additional ruling, the portion of the plot that was not covered by the gola was not subject to a mortgage. He determined that the plaintiff was entitled to regain possession of the Gola residence, but only when the mortgages were redeemed upon payment of the appropriate mortgage amount.
Arguments from the respondent-The appellant’s second argument is that the courts below should have ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to even an eight-anna interest in the property because defendant 13—who bought the property from defendants 1 through 12—acquired an interest in the entire property, as evidenced by their sale certificates. The sale certificate served as the appellant’s vendors’ legal proof of ownership, which he could rely on to prove his own ownership of the complete sixteen annas interest in the land.
Judgement
The learned Judges ruled that the joint family status was unaffected by the insolvency and that any increase in the insolvent’s share due to survivorship would constitute after-acquired property in accordance with Section 28(4) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The Madras High Court’s Full Bench later reaffirmed the idea in 1952-1 Mad L) 308: (AIR 1952 Mad 419), where it was decided that a co-parceler’s alienation of his share does not have the effect of dividing the family’s status. The status of the family is not also divided as a result of a coparcener’s insolvency. This decision is based on statements made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the cases of Hardi Narain Sahu v. Ruder Perkasn Misser, 11 Ind App 26 (PC), Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh, 17 Ind App 194 (PC), Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Pershad Singh, and Deendyal Lal v. Jugdeep Narain Singh. Unfortunately, the knowledgeable judges failed to take into account the Madras High Court’s opposing rulings.
Although I have the utmost respect for the learned Judges, I believe that the authorities they consulted do not support the position they ultimately came to. I’ll talk about these examples right now. However, I can say right away that the Privy Council has never ruled that a coparcener of a joint Hindu family subject to Mitakshara law’s undivided share can be attached during his lifetime or, for that matter, sold at auction as a result of an attachment, having the effect of disrupting the joint status.
Furthermore, nothing in these judgements suggests such an inference. In the well-known case of Deendyal, 4 Ind App 247 (PC), the father and son who made up the joint family were subject to Mitakshara Law. The father’s right, title, and interest in certain specific properties belonging to the joint family were all subject to a money judgement bought by the person who held the decree after being sold in accordance with it. Attempts by the judgment-debtor to block the transaction were unsuccessful.
Conclusion
He argued, in essence, that the auction sale was illegal and that, in accordance with Mitakshara law, it did not even pass the father’s stake in the land because the father himself was not permitted to sell his interest. On the other hand, the purchaser argued that he was entitled to the entire property, including the son’s stake because the debt was made for a legitimate need. In this instance, it was determined that the debt was incurred without a valid reason.
Regarding the issue of whether, in accordance with Mitakshara law, a co sharer in a joint family estate can have his share of the estate taken and sold in fulfilment of a judgement against him alone and if the buyer at auction obtained a product, their Lordships of the Privy Council established the following:
It is established law that one cosharer’s right, title, and interest in a joint estate may be attached and sold in order to pay off his personal debt, and that the buyer under such an execution assumes the role of the judgment-debtor and gains the right to compel a partition as against the other co sharers.
References
Written by Ishita Singh, Chotanagpur Law College Ranchi,2nd semester, an intern under legal Vidhiya.
