NDLI: K.c. Laxmana Vs. K.c. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Limitation Act 1963: Articles 58 and 109
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 58 and 109 – Plaintiff challenged alienation of portion of joint family property made by his fatherthe first defendant, under Ex.P-1, in favour of the second defendant – Defendants relying on Article 58 took plea that suit was time barred – Held: Parties to the suit are Hindus and are governed by Mitkashara Law – Article 58 provides for the period of limitation to file a suit to obtain any other declaration – It is a residuary article governing all those suits for declaration which are not specifically governed by any other articles in the Limitation Act – Article 109 is the special article to apply where the alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties are governed by Mitakshara law – Generally, where a statute contains both general provision as well as specific provision, the latter must prevail – Therefore, Article 58 has no application to the instant case – The word ‘alienation’ in Article 109 includes ‘gift’ – In order to attract Article 109, the conditions to be fulfilled are: (1) the parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the father – This article provides that the period of limitation is twelve years from the date the alienee takes possession of the property – In the instant case, Ex.P-1 was executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant on 02.03.1980 and the second defendant took possession of the property on 22.03.1980 when Ex.P1 was registered – Counting the period of twelve years from 22.03.1980, the limitation for filing of the suit would have expired on 21.03.1992 – Suit was filed on 11.10.1991 – Therefore, suit was not barred by time. Hindu law: Alienation of portion of joint family property by father who was karta of joint family in favour of a person who was neither coparcener nor member of family – Suit for declaration that the gift/settlement deed executed by father-first defendant in favour of second defendant was null and void – Plaintiff was not a signatory to the said document and has categorically averred in the plaint that he did not consent to the gifting of the schedule property in favour of the second defendant by the said deed – Held: It is trite law that Karta/Manager of a joint family property may alienate joint family property only in three situations, namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family – Where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained – Therefore, the alienation of the joint family property in favour of the second defendant was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff whose consent was not obtained as a coparcener before the said alienation – It is admitted by the second defendant that the settlement deed was, in fact, a gift deed which was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant ‘out of love and affection’ and by virtue of which the second defendant was given a portion of the joint family property – A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose – Therefore, a deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’ – It is irrelevant if such gift or settlement was made by a donor, i.e. the first defendant, in favour of a donee who was raised by the donor without any relationship, i.e. the second defendant – The settlement deed/gift deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was rightly declared as null and void by the courts below.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 432
Petitioner	K.c. Laxmana
Respondent	K.c. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr.
SCR	[2022] 3 S.C.R. 40
Judgement Date	2022-04-19
Case Number	2582

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

K.c. Laxmana Vs. K.c. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Gulbarga University Vs. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali and Anr.

S.s. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

A. Valliammai Vs. K.p. Murali and Others

R.k. Parvatharaj Gupta Vs. K.c. Jayadeva Reddy

K. Anjinappa Vs. K.c. Krishna Reddy and Anr.

N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy

Union of India and Ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr.

Ganpat Singh (dead) By Lrs. Vs. Kailash Shankar & Ors.

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

K.c. Laxmana Vs. K.c. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr.

K.c. Laxmana Vs. K.c. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Gulbarga University Vs. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali and Anr.

S.s. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

A. Valliammai Vs. K.p. Murali and Others

R.k. Parvatharaj Gupta Vs. K.c. Jayadeva Reddy

K. Anjinappa Vs. K.c. Krishna Reddy and Anr.

N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy

Union of India and Ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr.

Ganpat Singh (dead) By Lrs. Vs. Kailash Shankar & Ors.

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

K.c. Laxmana Vs. K.c. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr.