LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Karta of a Joint Hindu Family can surrender tenancy rights without the consent of other coparceners.
CASE TYPE: Property Law/Tenancy Dispute
Case Name: Kiran Devi vs. The Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: April 5, 2021
Date of the Judgment: April 5, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 188
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Hemant Gupta, J. (Authoring Judge)
Can a family member, acting as the manager (Karta) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), surrender tenancy rights of a property without the consent of all family members? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The Court examined whether a Karta’s decision to surrender a tenancy was valid, especially when the business in the tenanted premises had been closed for several years. The Supreme Court, in this case, had to decide if a Karta could surrender tenancy rights without the consent of other family members, especially in a situation where the business in the tenanted premises was no longer operational. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The dispute revolves around a property originally tenanted by Ram Sewak Ram, who ran a hotel business. After his death, his nephew, Devendra Prasad Sinha, took over the business. The plaintiff, a descendant of Ram Sewak Ram, claimed that the tenancy was a joint family asset and that Devendra Prasad Sinha, as Karta, could not surrender the tenancy without the consent of all family members. The plaintiff contended that the family had a hereditary right to the tenancy. The Wakf Board, on the other hand, argued that Devendra Prasad Sinha had surrendered the tenancy and that they had legally inducted the appellant, Kiran Devi, as a new tenant.
The plaintiff claimed that after the death of Ram Sewak Ram, Devendra Prasad Sinha became the Karta of the joint family and succeeded to the tenancy. The plaintiff also stated that his father, Surendra Kumar, managed the hotel and paid rent, and later, the plaintiff himself started running the hotel in 1988. Due to disputes, the hotel closed. The plaintiff then approached the Wakf Board to continue the hereditary tenancy. The Wakf Board and the appellant claimed that Devendra Prasad Sinha surrendered the tenancy in 1996, after which the appellant was inducted as a tenant.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1947-1955 | Rent paid by Ram Sewak Ram for the suit premises. |
| January 1960 | Death of Ram Sewak Ram. |
| 1988 | Plaintiff claims to have started running the hotel. |
| 21.03.1996 | Plaintiff’s grandfather along with others broke the lock of the suit premises and removed the belongings available in the shop. |
| 31.05.1996 | Devendra Prasad Sinha allegedly surrendered the tenancy rights. |
| 05.06.1996 | Appellant, Kiran Devi, inducted as a tenant by the Wakf Board. |
| 1996 | Plaintiff filed a suit before the Civil Court. |
| 04.02.2009 | Suit transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. |
| 06.02.2013 | High Court of Judicature at Patna allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 41. |
| 05.04.2021 | Supreme Court judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The plaintiff initially filed a suit in a civil court, seeking a declaration that he was the rightful tenant. The Wakf Board and the appellant then applied to have the case transferred to the Wakf Tribunal, which was granted. The Wakf Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding that Devendra Prasad Sinha had validly surrendered the tenancy. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna reversed the Tribunal’s decision, stating that Devendra Prasad Sinha, as Karta, could not surrender the tenancy without the consent of other family members. The High Court directed the dispossession of the appellant and restoration of possession to the plaintiff.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Wakf Act, 1995, specifically Section 83, which deals with the constitution of tribunals for resolving disputes related to Wakf properties. The proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, allows the High Court to review decisions of the Wakf Tribunal. The Supreme Court also considered the principles of Hindu law relating to Joint Hindu Families and the powers of a Karta.
The relevant extract of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is as follows:
“83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc. – (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunals.
xx xx xx
(9) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal:
Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Kiran Devi and Wakf Board):
- The Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff, citing the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf [(2010) 8 SCC 726]. They argued that a suit for declaration of tenancy was not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal.
- The High Court could not have challenged the order of the Wakf Tribunal through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as only a revision was permissible under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. They relied on Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 524] and Md. Wasiur Rahman & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC No. 14622 of 2017 dt. 25.04.2018].
- The High Court had re-appreciated facts in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which is not permissible. They cited Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram [(1986) 4 SCC 447] and Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde [(1978) 2 SCC 573].
- The surrender of possession was not of a joint Hindu family business but of the tenancy itself, which had not been operational for many years.
- Even if Devendra Prasad Sinha was the Karta, he had the right to surrender the tenancy without the consent of other coparceners, as it was for the benefit of the family because the business was not running.
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
- The nomenclature of the petition in the High Court was immaterial, as the High Court has jurisdiction under both Article 226 and the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. They referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749].
- Ram Sewak Ram was the original tenant, and the plaintiff has a right by birth in the tenancy, which could not be surrendered by the Karta without the consent of other coparceners.
- The plaintiff relied on Ram Awalamb & Ors. v. Jata Shankar & Ors. [AIR 1969 All. 526] to argue that Hindu personal law on devolution of joint family property applies to tenanted property. They also cited Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Sir Hukamchand Mannalal & Co. [(1970) 2 SCC 352] to argue that members of a Hindu Undivided Family can enter into contracts with strangers.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Plaintiff’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal |
|
|
| High Court’s Jurisdiction |
|
|
| Nature of Tenancy |
|
|
| Karta’s Authority |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the Wakf Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff.
- Whether the High Court could have entertained a writ petition against the order of the Wakf Tribunal.
- Whether the High Court was correct in re-appreciating the facts and setting aside the findings of the Wakf Tribunal.
- Whether the surrender of possession by Devendra Prasad Sinha was of a joint Hindu family business or only of tenancy.
- Whether the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family has the right to surrender tenancy without the consent of other coparceners.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Wakf Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. | The Supreme Court held that it was not open to the appellant to dispute the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal, as the suit was transferred to the Tribunal at their instance. |
| Whether the High Court could have entertained a writ petition against the order of the Wakf Tribunal. | The Court held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not curtailed by the Wakf Act and the nomenclature of the petition is immaterial. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in re-appreciating the facts and setting aside the findings of the Wakf Tribunal. | The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in re-appreciating the facts and holding that the tenancy was a joint family asset. |
| Whether the surrender of possession by Devendra Prasad Sinha was of a joint Hindu family business or only of tenancy. | The Court held that the surrender was of the tenancy, which was an individual right, and not of a joint Hindu family business. |
| Whether the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family has the right to surrender tenancy without the consent of other coparceners. | The Court held that the Karta had the right to surrender the tenancy, especially when the business was not operational, and it was for the benefit of the family. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf [(2010) 8 SCC 726] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue that the Wakf Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration of tenancy. The Court held that the appellant could not raise this objection as the matter was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal at their instance. |
| Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike [(2019) 4 SCC 698] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the argument that proceedings instituted prior to the amendment of the Wakf Act were to continue as per the unamended provisions. |
| Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 524] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue that a writ petition was not maintainable when an alternative remedy was available. The Court distinguished this case, noting that the remedy under the Wakf Act was before the High Court itself. |
| Md. Wasiur Rahman & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC No. 14622 of 2017 dt. 25.04.2018] | High Court of Judicature at Patna | Cited by the appellant to argue that a writ petition was not maintainable when an alternative remedy was available. The Court distinguished this case, noting that it did not address whether a petition under Article 226/227 could be treated as a petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. |
| Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram [(1986) 4 SCC 447] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue that the High Court could not re-appreciate facts in a petition under Article 227. |
| Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde [(1978) 2 SCC 573] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue that no interference is permitted in a tenancy matter under Article 226 or 227. |
| Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the plaintiff to argue that the nomenclature of the petition is immaterial. The Court agreed that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 even if the petition was filed under Article 226. |
| Ram Awalamb & Ors. v. Jata Shankar & Ors. [AIR 1969 All. 526] | Allahabad High Court | Cited by the plaintiff to argue that Hindu personal law applies to tenanted property. The Court distinguished this case, holding that personal law cannot be imported into tenancy rights. |
| Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Sir Hukamchand Mannalal & Co. [(1970) 2 SCC 352] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the plaintiff to argue that members of a Hindu Undivided Family can enter into contracts with strangers. The Court agreed but held that such contracts are in an individual capacity. |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 3 SCC 261] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the principle that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 cannot be curtailed. |
| Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [(2015) 5 SCC 423] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 and that jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from Article 226. |
| Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. [(2003) 6 SCC 675] | Supreme Court of India | Overruled by Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [(2015) 5 SCC 423] regarding the scope of Article 226 and 227. |
| Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal [(1983) 2 SCC 422] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that a wrong reference to the power under which an action was taken does not vitiate the action if it could be justified under some other power. |
| P .K.P .S. Pichappa Chettiar & Ors. v. Chockalingam Pillai & Ors. [AIR 1934 Privy Council 192] | Privy Council | Cited to support the view that when a manager of a joint family enters into a partnership, it does not automatically make other family members partners. |
| G. Narayana Raju (Dead) by his Legal Representative v. G. Chamaraju & Ors. [AIR 1968 SC 1276] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of a family member is a joint business unless it is shown that it grew with joint family funds. |
| P .S. Sairam & Anr. v. P .S. Rama Rao Pissey & Ors. [(2004) 11 SCC 320] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that there is no presumption that a business is a joint family business, unlike immovable property. |
| Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad [(1879) 6 IA 88] | Privy Council | Cited to support the view that a manager can alienate joint family property for legal necessity. |
| Sahu Ram v. Bhup Singh [AIR 1917 PC 61] | Privy Council | Cited to support the view that if legal necessity is established, the express consent of adult coparceners is not necessary for alienation of joint family property. |
| Radha Krishnadas v. Kaluram [AIR 1967 SC 574] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that a transaction entered into for legal necessity by a manager is deemed to be on behalf of the family. |
| Dharmaraj Singh v. Chandrasekhar Rao [(1942) Nag 214] | Nagpur High Court | Cited to support the view that a manager can alienate even a minor coparcener’s share to satisfy an antecedent debt of the minor’s father or grandfather. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Rejected. The Court held that the appellant could not challenge the jurisdiction as the suit was transferred at their instance. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court could not entertain a writ petition. | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is not curtailed and the nomenclature of the petition is immaterial. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court re-appreciated the facts. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court erred in re-appreciating facts. |
| Appellant’s submission that the surrender was of tenancy, not of a joint family business. | Accepted. The Court held that the tenancy was an individual right, not a joint family asset. |
| Appellant’s submission that Karta had the right to surrender tenancy. | Accepted. The Court held that the Karta had the right to surrender the tenancy, especially when the business was not operational. |
| Plaintiff’s submission that the nomenclature of the petition was immaterial. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 even if the petition was filed under Article 226. |
| Plaintiff’s submission that the tenancy was a joint family asset. | Rejected. The Court held that the tenancy was an individual right, not a joint family asset. |
| Plaintiff’s submission that the Karta cannot surrender tenancy without the consent of coparceners. | Rejected. The Court held that the Karta had the right to surrender the tenancy. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Court held that the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf [(2010) 8 SCC 726]* was not applicable in the present case because the appellant had themselves sought the transfer of the case to the Wakf Tribunal.
✓ The Court held that the judgment in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 524]* was not applicable as the remedy under the Wakf Act was before the High Court itself.
✓ The Court held that the judgment in Md. Wasiur Rahman & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC No. 14622 of 2017 dt. 25.04.2018]* was also not applicable because it did not address the issue of whether a writ petition could be treated as a petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995.
✓ The Court clarified that the judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. [(2003) 6 SCC 675]* was overruled by Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [(2015) 5 SCC 423]* regarding the scope of Article 226 and 227.
✓ The Court relied on Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749]* to hold that the nomenclature of the petition is immaterial.
✓ The Court distinguished the judgment in Ram Awalamb & Ors. v. Jata Shankar & Ors. [AIR 1969 All. 526]*, holding that personal law cannot be imported into tenancy rights.
✓ The Court relied on Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Sir Hukamchand Mannalal & Co. [(1970) 2 SCC 352]* to hold that members of a Hindu Undivided Family can enter into contracts with strangers, but such contracts are in an individual capacity.
✓ The Court relied on Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal [(1983) 2 SCC 422]* to support the view that a wrong reference to the power under which an action was taken does not vitiate the action if it could be justified under some other power.
✓ The Court relied on P .K.P .S. Pichappa Chettiar & Ors. v. Chockalingam Pillai & Ors. [AIR 1934 Privy Council 192]* to support the view that when a manager of a joint family enters into a partnership, it does not automatically make other family members partners.
✓ The Court relied on G. Narayana Raju (Dead) by his Legal Representative v. G. Chamaraju & Ors. [AIR 1968 SC 1276]* to support the view that there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of a family member is a joint business unless it is shown that it grew with joint family funds.
✓ The Court relied on P .S. Sairam & Anr. v. P .S. Rama Rao Pissey & Ors. [(2004) 11 SCC 320]* to support the view that there is no presumption that a business is a joint family business, unlike immovable property.
✓ The Court relied on Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad [(1879) 6 IA 88]*, Sahu Ram v. Bhup Singh [AIR 1917 PC 61]*, Radha Krishnadas v. Kaluram [AIR 1967 SC 574]* and Dharmaraj Singh v. Chandrasekhar Rao [(1942) Nag 214]* to support the view that a manager can alienate joint family property for legal necessity.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Individual Nature of Tenancy: The Court emphasized that a tenancy is an individual right and not a joint family asset unless proven otherwise. The High Court erred in presuming that the tenancy was a joint family asset merely based on rent receipts and ration cards.
- Karta’s Authority: The Court recognized the Karta’s authority to surrender the tenancy, especially when the business was not operational. This action was considered to be for the benefit of the family, as the liability to pay rent continued to accrue.
- Rejection of Joint Family Business Presumption: The Court held that there is no presumption that a business carried out in a tenanted premise is a joint family business, even if the tenant is a Karta of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff failed to prove that the business was a joint family venture.
- Validity of Surrender Letter: The Court found that the surrender letter was validly proved and accepted by the Wakf Board. The High Court’s rejection of the letter was not based on sound reasoning.
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of legal principles and the factual matrix of the case. The Court emphasized that the tenancy was an individual right and not a joint family asset. The Court also highlighted that the Karta had the right to surrender the tenancy for the benefit of the family, especially when the business was not operational.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Individual Nature of Tenancy | 35% |
| Karta’s Authority | 30% |
| Rejection of Joint Family Business Presumption | 25% |
| Validity of Surrender Letter | 10% |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family has the right to surrender tenancy rights without the consent of other coparceners, especially when the business is not operational and it is for the benefit of the family. The Court emphasized that tenancy is an individual right and not a joint family asset unless proven otherwise. The Court also held that the High Court had erred in re-appreciating the facts and setting aside the findings of the Wakf Tribunal. This judgment clarifies the powers of a Karta in managing tenancy rights and the individual nature of such rights in the context of a Joint Hindu Family.
Flowchart of the Case