Fami

l
ylawcases(
9to16)
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

HUNOOMANPERSAUDPANDAYVMUSSUMAT
BABOOEEMUNRAJKOONWEREE(
1856)
I
ssue-t
hequest
ionwaswhet
herakar
tahaspowert
oexecut
emor
tgageofheri
nfantson
whenmort
gagewasf ort
hebenef
itoft
heminor'
sestat
e,t
oprev
entasequest
rat
ionand
pr
obabl
econfi
scat
ionduetonon-
paymentofgover
nmentrev
enue.

Deci
sion-
ThePr
ivyCounci
lpr
opoundedt
hef
oll
owi
ngf
ivepr
oposi
ti
ons:
-

(i
)Thepoweroftheguardi
an/managerf oraninf
anthei
r(ort
hepowerofkarta)t
ochargean
estat
ewhichisnothi
sown,isundertheHindulaw,ali
mit
edandqual
if
iedpower.I
tcanonl
ybe
exerc
isedr
ight
lyi
nthecaseoflegalnecessit
yorfort
hebenefi
tofest
ate.

(
ii
)Incaseaguardian/
managermakesali
enat
ionasaprudentman,i
nordert
obenefittheest
ate,
hebonaf
t i
delenderorali
eneei
snotaf
fect
edbytheprevi
ousmismanagementofes
tate,pr
ovi
ded
I
notherwords,heshouldn'
thav edmal
eact af
ide.

(
ii
i
)Theal
i
eneei
sboundt
omak operandbonaf
epr ideenqui
ri
esast
otheexi
stenceofnecessi
ty.

(i
v)Theal
ienee'
sposit
ioni
snotaffectedbyt
hefac
tthati
ftheminor
'
spr
oper
tywer
epr
oper
lyand
bett
ermanaged,thedangerornecessit
ywoul
dhavenotari
sen.

(
v)Theal
i
eneei
snotboundtoseeast
otheact
ual
appl
i
cat
ionofmoneyf
ort
hel
egal
nec
ess
ity
.He
i
snotanadmi
nist
rat
oroff
und.

(
vi)wheneveral
i
enat
ioni
schal
l
engedi
tisf
ort
heal
i
eneet
oshow (
'bur
denofpr
oof
)thatt
her
e
wasnecessit
y.

I
nthepr esentcase,
ther
ewasnosuggest ionthatthedebtofinfantfatherwascontrac
tedfor
i
ll
egalorimmoralpur
poses.thewidow(guardi
an/manager)witht heobjectofsav i
ngtheestate,
ofpayingthedebtofher,pr
edecessor
s,executedthemor t
gagebond.Nogr eat
erbenefi
t.
mortgagebondwasi nthenatur
eofasal v
ageex pendi
tur
e.Therefore,t
healienat
ionwil
lbebinding
ontheson

Moreov
er,abondofthi
snat ur
edoesnotexti
ngui
shthetit
leoft
heinf
ant
,itf
oll
ows
t
hen,asamatterofj
ust
iceandequi
ty,
thatt
hemortgagebondisv
ali
dandofef
fect
.
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

SUNI
LKUMARvRAM PRAKASH(
1988)
I
ssue-whet
herasui
tforper
manenti
nj
unc
tionbyac
opar
ceneragai
nstt
hef
atherf
orr
est
rai
ni
ng
hi
mf r
om ali
enat
ingt
hehous
epr
oper
tybel
ongi
ngt
othej
oi
ntHi
nduf
ami
l
yforl
egal
necessi
tywas
maint
ainabl
e.

Deci
sion-
TheSupr
emeCour
tobser
ved:
Thesi
gni
fi
canceandsoci
alnecessi
tybehi
nd'
col
l
ect
ive
ownership'
ofJFP,and,
theuni
queandvi
tal
posi
ti
onoftheKarta/manageroft
heHJFcannotbe
over
looked.AKart
amayconsultt
hefami
lymembersandifnecessar
ytakethei
rconsent
,buthei
s
notanswerabl
etoeachofthem.

Nodoubtt helawconf er
sar ightonthecoparcenert ochall
enget heali
enati
onmadebyKar ta,but
thatri
ghtisnoti nclusiveofther i
ghttoobstructali
enat i
on.Forther i
ghttoobst
ructal
ienat
ion
couldbec ons i
der edasinc i
dentalt
other i
ghttochal l
engethealienati
on.Thecoparcenercannot
clai
mt helat t
errightandindeed, heisnotenti
tledtoi t
.Theref
ore,hecannotmov ethecourtto
grantreli
efbyi nj
unct i
onrestraini
ngtheKar t
afr om ali
enati
ngthec oparcenar
yproper
ty.An
i
njuncti
onc annotbegr antedwhenapar tycouldobt ai
nanef f
icaciousreli
efbyanyotherusual
modeofpr oceedi ng(exceptincaseofbr eachoft r
ust).Thecopar c
enerhasadequateremedyto
i
mpeac htheal i
enationmadebyt heKarta.

DEVKI
SHANVRAM KI
SHAN(
2002)
I
ssue-Thesubst
ant
ial
quest
ionofl
awwaswhet
hert
het
aki
ngoft
hedebtbyamaj
or
memberofthefamil
yforthemarri
ageofami normemberoft
hef
ami
l
yisadebt
i
ncur
redf
oralegal
necessi
tyori
sfori
ll
egal
pur
pose?

Deci
sion-Thecour
thel
dthatwher
ethemar
ri
ageoft
hemi
norwasper
for
medi
n
viol
ati
onoft hepr ovi
sionsoft heChi
ldMarri
ageRestrai
ntAct,1929,t hedebthav i
ng
beenincurr
edf orthatpurpose,
whichwasnotl
awful
,cannotberegardedasal awful
debt
andalienati
onont hatgroundcannotberegardedasal awfulal
ienat
ionbindingupon
theminorsIft hepropertywasmor t
gagedorsoldforthepurposeofmar r
yi
ngmi nors,
suchtransacti
onswoul dbeoppos edtopubli
cpoli
cy,i
nv i
ew ofthepr ohi
bi
ti
onofc hil
d
marri
ageunde rtheActof1929.
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

BALMUKANDVKAMLAWATI(
1964)
I
ssue-whet
herkar
ta al
i
enat
ewhen t
heal
i
enat
ion wasnotf
oranyl
egal
necessi
tyorbenef
itt
oest
ate?

Deci
sion-
Thekar
ta,
as'
prudentmanager
',
candoal
lthoset
hingswhi
char
ein
furt
heranceoff amily'
sadvancementort opr eventprobablelosses,pr
ov i
dedhi sact sare
notpurelyofaspecul ati
veorv i
sionarychar acter
.Thi si
mpliesthatkar
tacan' tconvertfamil
y
propert
yintomoneyj ustbecausepr oper t
ydoesn' tyi
eldanyi ncome,withoutr epl
acingitwit
h
somemor eadv antageousproperty.But ,
ifthekar t
a'spoweri stobecontinuedt opur el
y
defensiveacts,t
herewoul dbenopr ogress.InA.T.Vasudev ar’
scase,thecour theldthatthe
kartacanalienate.
..i
fiti
sclearl
ybenef i
cial,eventhought hereisnolegal necessit
y.Ifaland
noty i
eldi
ngany thi
ngissold,thenitis..
.benefit

Thus,ineachcase,thecourtmustbesat i
sfi
edt hat" i
twas, infact,suchasconf err
edorwas
reasonabl
yexpectedtoconferbenef i
tonthef ami lyatt hetimeitwasent er
edinto.
"I nthe
presentcase,br
othersofthekartawereadults, theirconsentascopar cenersi
snecessar y.
I
nv iewoftheoppositi
onofalienati
onbycopar cener s,andt hefactthattheali
enationwas
notforanylegalnecessi
tyorbenefitt
oestate, thesai dalienati
onisv oidabl
eatthei nst
ance
ofcoparceners.

Ar
shnoorSi
nghv
.Har
pal
Kaur(2019)
I
ssue-
Thei
ssuest
hatar
isef
orconsi
der
ati
onbef
oreusar
etwof
old:

(
i)whethert
hesui
tpr
oper
tywascopar
cenar
ypr
oper
tyorsel
facqui
redpr
oper
tyofappel
l
ant
f
ather
;

(i
i)t
hevali
dit
yoftheSal
eDeedsexecut
edbyappel
lantf
atheri
nfav
ourofRespondentNo.1
andthesubsequentSal
eDeeddat
ed30.10.
2007execut
edbyRespondentNo.1infavourof
RespondentNos.2&3.

Deci
sion-I
nthepr
esentcase,t
heent
ir
epr
oper
tyofLalSi
nghwasi
nher
it
edbyhi
s
sonInderSinghascopar cenaryproper
typri
orto1956.Thiscoparcenarypropertywas
parti
ti
onedbetweenthethreesonsofI nderSi
nghbythecourtvideadecr eeofpar t
it
ion
dated04.11.1964.Theshar esall
ottedinparti
ti
ont othecoparceners,continuedt o
remain coparcenar
y propertyint hei
rhands qua t hei
rmal e descendants.As a
consequence,thepropertyall
ott
edt oDharam Singhinpart
it
ioncont i
nuedt or emain
copar
cenar
ypr
oper
tyquat
heAppel
l
ant
.

i
nThesecondi ssuecourthel
dthatItissettl
edlaw thatthepowerofaKart
atosell
coparcenar
ypropert
yissubjectt
ocertainrest
rict
ionsviz
.thesaleshoul
dbeforl
egal
necessit
yorforthebenef
itoft
heestat
e.

theonuswasont healieneei.
e.RespondentNo.1toprovethatt
herewasal
egal
necessi
ty,
orbenef
itt
otheestat
e,orthatshehadmadebonafi
deenqui
ri
e.

Asaconsequence,theSaleDeedsdated01.
09.1999areherebycancel
ledasbeing
i
ll
egal
,nul
landvoid.Dhar
am Si
nghcouldnothav
esol dthecopar
cenarysui
tproper
ty,
i
nwhichtheAppel
lantwasacoparcener
,byt
heaforesai
dall
egedSaleDeeds.

Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

GurammaBhr atarChanbasappav
.Mal
l
appa
Chanbasappa(1964)
i
nthi
scase,
gif
tofi
mmov
abl
eJHFpr
oper
tyex
cit
edi
ntwof
olds-

1.Gi
ftt
odaught
er

I
ssue-whet
heragi
ftofj
oi
ntf
ami
l
yimmov
abl
epr
oper
tyt
odaught
er,(
window)madeby
thef
atheraf
terhermar
ri
agewashel
dval
i
d.Att
het i
meofmakingoft
hisgi
ft
,thef
ather
hadthreewi v
es,oneoutofwhichwaspregnantandl
atergavebir
thtoason,i s
j
usti
fi
ed?

Deci
sion-TheApexCour
tanal
yse
dvar
iousHi
nduTe
xtsandde
cis
ionsoft
hecour
tsont
hepoi
nt
Andheldt hatTheri
ghtwaslostbyeff
luxofti
me.Buti
tbecamec ry
stall
i
zedintoamor alobl
igati
on.
Thef at
herorhisrepresent
ati
vescanmakeav al
i
dgift,bywayofr easonableprovisi
onsf ort
he
maintenanceofthedaughter,
regar
dbeinghadtothef
inanci
alandotherrel
evantci
rcumstancesof
thefamily
.

TheCourtheld:I
nt hepresentcase,t hegiftmadebythefathertothedaughterwaswithi
nhi s
ri
ghtandcertai
nlyreasonabl
e.Thef ami lyhadext
ensi
vepropert
ies(wort
hlakhs)
,and,t
hefather
gavethewidoweddaughteronl
yal i
fe-estateinasmal
lpor
ti
onofl and(wort
hRs.5000).Thus,the
gi
fttothedaughterisval
id.

2.Gi
ftt
orel
ati
ve

I
ssue-Thei
ssuear
ose:Cani
tbesai
dthatagi
ftoft
hisnat
uret
oar
elat
iveoutofl
ove
andaf
fect
ioni
sagi
ftf
or"
piouspur
poses"wi
thi
nthemeani
ngoft
hatexpr
essi
oni
nHi
ndu
l
aw?
Deci
sion-TheApexCour
t,i
nthepr
esentcase,
obser
ved:I
tmay
,ther
efor
e,beconceded
thatt
heex pression"piouspur poses"iswi deenough,undercer
taincircumstances,t
otakein
chari
tablepur poses.Thecour theldt hatI tmustber ememberedt hatthemanagerhasno
absol
ut epowerofdi sposalov erjointHinduf ami
lypropert
y.TheHi ndul awper mi
tshimt o
dosoonl ywi thi
nstri
ctlimits.Wecannotex t
endthescopeoft hepoweront hebas i
softhe
wideinterpretati
ongivet othewor ds" pi
ouspurposes
"i nHindulawi nadi f
ferentc
ontex
t.In
thecircumst ances,wehol dt hatagi f
tt oast r
angerofaj ointfami l
ypr oper
tybyt he
manageroft hef amilyisvoid.

Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

R.KUPPAYEEVRAJAGONDER(
2004)
I
ssue-whet
hert
hegi
ft
/set
tl
ementmadebyt
hef
atheri
nfav
ourofhi
smar
ri
eddaught
er
outofnatur
all
oveandaf
fect
ionofareasonabl
eex
tentofi
mmov
abl
epr
oper
ty(
one-
twent
y-
si
xth)outoft
hejoi
ntf
ami
lyproper
tyi
svali
d?

Deci
sion-TheSupr
emeCour
t,howev
er,uphel
dthev
ali
dit
yoft
hegi
ft
.TheApexCour
t
hel
dt hatthefathercanmak eagi ftofancest
rali
mmov abl
epropertytohisdaughter(a
pi
ouspur pose)withi
nreasonabl
el i
mi t
s.Thoughtheali
enati
onmustbebyanac tint
er
vi
vosandnotbyWi ll
,buttheextendedmeani nggiv
ent othewor ds"piouspurposes"
enabl
est hefathertomakesuchAgi f
tofJFPatt heti
meofhermar ri
ageorevenl ong
aft
erhermar r
iage.However
,theextendedmeaninghasnotbeenextended)thegiftmade
i
nf av
ourofot herfemalemembersoft hefamily

Thequest i
onast owhetherapar t
iculargif
tiswithi
nr easonableli
mitsornothastobe
j
udgedaccor di
ngtothestat
usoft hefami l
yandt heext
entandv alueofthepr
opertygi
fted.
Nohar dandf astrul
eprescri
binglimitsofsuchagi ftcanbel aiddown.Inthepresent
case,one-t
wenty-
sixt
hshareoft hetotalholdi
ngofthef ami l
ycannotbehel dtobeeither
unreasonableorexcessi
veunderanyci rcumstances.
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

Arv
ind&AbasahebGaneshKul kar
niv
.Anna&
Dhanpal
Par
isaChougul
e(1980)
I
ssue-Thequest
ionast
owhet
hera
nce
str
alpr
ope
rtyi
ssol
dfort
hepur
pos
eofdi
scha
rgi
ng
debtsi
ncur
redbythefat
herandthebul
kofthepr
oce
edsofthesal
eissoacc
ount
ed,t
hef
act
thatas
ma l
lpar
tofthec
onsi
dera
ti
onisnotac
count
edf
orwi
ll
inval
i
dat
ethesal
eornot
?

Thetri
alcourtf
oundthatt her
ewaslegalnecessi
tyforthesaletotheextentofRs.2,
600
onl
y,thattheconsi
derati
onofRs.3,000f orthesalewasi nadequateasthelandswere
wort
haboutRs.4, 000,thatther
ewasnosuchcompel lingpressureontheestateasto
j
usti
fythesaleandtherefore,
thesal
ewasnotf orthebenefitoft
hef ami
ly.

Deci
sion-TheSupr
emeCour
tuphol
dingt
hev
ali
dit
yofsal
ehel
dthatt
hesal
ewasf
orl
egal
necessit
yasi thadt heeffectofreleasi
ngs i
xitemsofpr ope r
ti
esfrom thebur denofthe
mortgage.Thefamil
ywasal sorel
iev
edf rom t
hebur denofpayingrenttothemor t
gageeunder
theleaseback .Further
,theconsiderati
onwasnotgr osslyinadequate.Wher eancestral
propert
yissoldforthepurposeofdischargi
ngdebtsincurr
edbyt hefatherandthebulkofthe
proceedsoft hesal
ei ssoaccounted,t hefactthatasmal lpartoftheconsiderati
onisnot
accountedforwil
lnotinval
idatet
hesal e.