Decided on August 09,1954

KISHORI LAL Respondents


- (1.) This is a defendant's appeal against an appellate decree of the Senior Sub-Judge Mr. Tirath Das Sehgal reversing the decree of the trial Court and thus decreeing the plaintiff's suit.
(2.) The plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 were members of a joint Hindu family and the father, defendant No. 3, who was also the Karta of the family, on the 14th January, 1940 sold the land in dispute for Rs. 600/-. In the sale deed the sale is stated to before the purposes of carrying on the shop business. The father was at one time a commission agent and he is alleged to have started a grocer's business and it is for that the money was required. The learned Senior Sub Judge has written a judgment which with very great respect I have to say is unintelligible. Neither the facts nor the principles of law have been correctly stated.
(3.) If the family is a trading family and the father changes over to a business different from which he was carrying on before and for the purposes of that business, which is the main stay of the family, sells a portion of the family property for a price which is not inadequate, the sale should in my opinion to upheld if it is intended for the purposes of carrying on that business. In Bonthi Damodaram Chetty v. Bansilal Abeerchand, I.L.R. 51 Mad. 711, it was held that if business was carried on by the grand-father and then discontinued and after his death the father started the business an alienation made for such a business was binding on the joint family. In another case where the father was carrying on a business and after his death the guardian of the minor sold the property for the extension of that business it was held to be binding on the family by the Allahabad High Court in Angneylal v. Angneylal, 1951 AIR(All) 400;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.