Supreme Court Upholds Relinquishment Deed by Karta in Joint Hindu Family Property Dispute: M.R. Vinoda vs. M.S. Susheelamma (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2021

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2017

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a senior family member, acting as the Karta, relinquish rights to property on behalf of the family, including minor members? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a dispute over a relinquishment deed in a joint Hindu family. The court examined the powers of a Karta and the limitations for challenging such transactions. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute within a Hindu family concerning a property in Madenahalli Village. The family’s history is as follows:

On 15th April 1961, a partition deed (Exhibit P-1) was executed by M.C. Rudrappa, Patel Mallegowda, and Mogannagowda, dividing the joint Hindu family properties among their respective branches. This partition is not contested.

On 13th March 1969, M.R. Rajashekar (son of M.C. Rudrappa) and M.P. Basavaraju (son of Mogannagowda) executed a relinquishment deed (Exhibit P-2), transferring a 6-acre, 34-gunta property in Survey No. 29 to Patel Mallegowda. This relinquishment deed is the subject of the dispute.

On 18th November 1994, M.R. Shivakumar, M.R. Mallesha, M.R. Vinoda, and M.R. Chidananda (younger sons of M.C. Rudrappa) filed a suit to declare the relinquishment deed void, arguing that M.R. Rajashekar had no right to relinquish their shares, especially since M.R. Chidananda was a minor at the time of the deed’s execution. They sought a partition of the property.

The defendants (sons of Patel Mallegowda) contended that the relinquishment deed was valid and the suit was barred by limitation.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the relinquishment deed was valid, as M.R. Rajashekar was the eldest male member and entitled to execute the deed on behalf of his branch. It also held that the suit was barred by limitation.

The Additional Sessions Judge, in the first appeal, reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that M.R. Rajashekar was not competent to execute the relinquishment deed. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the deed was void.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in the second appeal, ruled that the relinquishment deed was not void ab initio and that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court rejected the plea for partition.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Plaintiff No. 3 (M.R. Vinoda) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: Defines the natural guardians of a Hindu minor. It states that the father is the natural guardian of a minor, and after him, the mother. However, this section excludes the minor’s undivided interest in joint family property from the purview of natural guardianship.
  
  “The natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are—
  (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl—the father, and after him, the mother…”
• Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: Outlines the powers of a natural guardian. It stipulates that a natural guardian cannot, without the court’s permission, transfer a minor’s immovable property.
  
  “The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,—(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor…”
• Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: States that no guardian shall be appointed for a minor’s undivided interest in joint family property if the property is under the management of an adult family member.
  
  “Where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family property and the property is under the management of an adult member of the family, no guardian shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such undivided interest…”

The Court clarified that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 does not envisage a natural guardian for a minor’s undivided interest in joint Hindu family property. The Karta, or head of the family, manages the joint family property, and the provisions requiring court permission for property alienation do not apply to the Karta’s actions regarding joint family property, even if a minor has an interest in it.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Plaintiff No. 3) Arguments:

• The relinquishment deed (Exhibit P-2) executed by M.R. Rajashekar was invalid because Plaintiff No. 4 was a minor at the time, and M.R. Rajashekar, as the eldest brother, did not have the authority to relinquish the minor’s share.
• The mother, as the natural guardian, was alive at the time of the relinquishment deed, and hence the eldest brother did not have the right to represent and manage their branch.
• The relinquishment deed was not for the benefit of the estate or for legal necessity.
• The suit was not barred by limitation because the relinquishment deed was void.

Respondents’ (Defendant Nos. 1 to 3) Arguments:

• M.R. Rajashekar, as the Karta of his branch, had the authority to execute the relinquishment deed on behalf of the joint family, including the minor members.
• The relinquishment deed was valid because it was made to settle the accounts between the three branches of the family, as Patel Mallegowda had paid a larger share of the mortgage redemption.
• The suit was barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it was filed more than three years after the relinquishment deed was executed and the plaintiffs had knowledge of it.

Sub-Submissions of the Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether M.R. Rajashekar, as the head of his branch, could have validly executed the relinquishment deed (Exhibit P-2) on behalf of his branch, given that Plaintiff No. 4 was a minor at the time.
2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

The Court also considered whether the relinquishment deed was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others, [(1996) 8 SCC 54]: This case clarified that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, does not envisage a natural guardian for a minor’s undivided interest in joint Hindu family property. The Karta manages the joint family property.
  
  “With regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor in joint family property, the provisions afore-culled are beads of the same string and need to be viewed in a single glimpse, simultaneously in conjunction with each other.”
  
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Sunil Kumar and Another v. Ram Parkash and Others, [(1988) 2 SCC 77]: This case established that a coparcener has no right to interfere in the management of joint family affairs.
  
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bhagwan Dayal (since deceased) and thereafter his heirs and legal representatives Bansgoal Dubey and Another v. Mst. Reoti Devi (deceased) and after her death, Mst. Dayavati, her daughter, [(1962) 3 SCR 440]: This case defined the concept of a branch within a larger joint Hindu family as a subordinate corporate body.
  
  “So long as a family remains an undivided family, two or more members of it, whether they be members of different branches or of one and the same branch of the family, can have no legal existence as a separate independent unit”
  
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Sudarsanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Maistri and Another, [1901 SCC OnLine Mad 91]: This case explained that members of a branch can form a distinct corporate unit within a larger family.
  
  “But so long as a family remains an undivided unit, two or more members thereof — whether they be members of different branches or of one and the game branch of the family,—can have no legal existence as a separate independent unit”
  
  Court: High Court of Madras
• M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal and Others, [(2020) 11 SCC 103]: This case discussed the role of a Karta and natural guardian in the context of a family settlement and deemed partition under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
  
  “A Karta is the manager of the joint family property. He is not the guardian of the minor members of the joint family.”
  
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Dead) By LR v. Thamma Rattamma and Others, [(1987) 3 SCC 294]: This case discussed the validity of a coparcener making a gift of his undivided interest.
  
  “It is, however, a settled law that a coparcener can make a gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to another coparcener or to a stranger with the prior consent of all other coparceners. Such a gift would be quite legal and valid.”
  
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Kehar Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. Nachittar Kaur and Others, [(2018) 14 SCC 445]: This case analyzed the concept of legal necessity for alienation of joint family property by a Karta.
  
  “Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood proved, then, in our view, no co-coparcener (son) has a right to challenge the sale made by the karta of his family.”
  
  Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal Provisions:

• Sections 6, 8, and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: These sections were interpreted to clarify the powers and limitations of natural guardians and the management of joint Hindu family property.
• Articles 58, 59, 60, and 109 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963: These articles were analyzed to determine the applicable limitation period for challenging the relinquishment deed.

Books:

• Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage, Eleventh Edition, Article 382: Cited to discuss the validity of gifts by coparceners.
• Mulla’s Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, Article 258: Cited to discuss the validity of gifts by coparceners.
• Mulla’s Hindu Law, 22nd Edition, Article 262: Cited to discuss the renunciation of interest by a coparcener.
• Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage, 17th Edition, Article 407: Cited to discuss the renunciation of interest by a coparcener.
• Mulla’s Hindu Law, 22nd Edition, Articles 223 and 224: Cited to discuss gifts for pious purposes by a father or managing member.
• Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, 17th Edition, Article 385: Cited to discuss the Karta’s power to alienate joint family property.
• Mulla’s Hindu Law, 22nd Edition, Article 242A: Cited to discuss the Karta’s discretion in fulfilling legal necessity.
• Mulla’s Hindu Law, Article 254: Cited to discuss the father’s special powers in alienating coparcenary property.
• Mulla’s Hindu Law, Article 241: Cited to discuss what constitutes legal necessity.

Table of Authorities and How They Were Used:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others [(1996) 8 SCC 54]: The Court followed this authority to hold that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, does not apply to the Karta’s management of joint family property.
• Sunil Kumar and Another v. Ram Parkash and Others [(1988) 2 SCC 77]: The Court cited this authority to support the position that a coparcener has no right to interfere in the management of joint family affairs.
• Bhagwan Dayal v. Mst. Reoti Devi [(1962) 3 SCR 440]: The Court relied on this authority to define the concept of a branch within a larger joint Hindu family.
• Sudarsanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Maistri [1901 SCC OnLine Mad 91]: The Court cited this authority to explain that members of a branch can form a distinct corporate unit within a larger family.
• M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal and Others [(2020) 11 SCC 103]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with a different situation governed by the pre-amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma [(1987) 3 SCC 294]: The Court cited this authority to discuss the validity of a coparcener making a gift of his undivided interest, distinguishing it from a relinquishment by a Karta.
• Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur [(2018) 14 SCC 445]: The Court relied on this authority to analyze the concept of legal necessity for alienation of joint family property by a Karta.

The Court reasoned that M.R. Rajashekar, as the Karta of his branch, had the authority to execute the relinquishment deed. The relinquishment was made to settle accounts between the family branches because Patel Mallegowda had paid a significant portion of the mortgage redemption. The Court also held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The authority of the Karta to manage and alienate joint Hindu family property, including the undivided interests of minor coparceners.
• The fact that the relinquishment was made to settle accounts between the three branches of the family, with Patel Mallegowda having made significant payments towards the mortgage redemption.
• The application of the Limitation Act, 1963, which barred the suit due to the delay in filing it.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual findings and legal principles. The Court emphasized the Karta’s authority and the need to settle family accounts, while also strictly adhering to the limitation period prescribed by law.

Logical Reasoning:

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by M.R. Vinoda and upheld the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The Court ruled that the relinquishment deed was valid and that the suit was barred by limitation.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

• A Karta of a joint Hindu family has the authority to execute a relinquishment deed on behalf of his branch, including the undivided interest of minor coparceners.
• The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, does not apply to the Karta’s management of joint family property.
• Suits challenging such deeds must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, as per the Limitation Act, 1963.

Critical Analysis

This judgment reinforces the powers of a Karta in managing joint Hindu family property. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the Karta’s authority and the application of the Limitation Act provides clarity on the legal framework governing such transactions. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely legal action in challenging property transactions. The judgment also highlights that the Karta’s actions are not subject to the same scrutiny as a natural guardian’s actions under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Implications of the Judgment:

• Karta’s Authority: The judgment reaffirms the Karta’s authority to manage and alienate joint family property, including the undivided interests of minor coparceners.
• Limitation Period: It emphasizes the importance of adhering to the limitation period for challenging property transactions.
• Clarity on Legal Framework: The judgment provides clarity on the legal framework governing the Karta’s powers and the limitations for challenging such transactions.
• Protection of Family Interest: The judgment suggests that a Karta’s actions, if taken for the benefit of the estate, will be upheld by the courts.