JAGAT NARAIN Vs. MATHURA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to a Full Bench by an order of reference of the Acting Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Sulaiman, and Mr. Justice Kendall. The question with which we are concerned is the meaning and implications of the term "benefit of the estate" as used in reference to transfers made by the manager of a Hindu joint family. The facts are simple and admitted. Nityanand had two sons, Rameshwar Prasad and Babu Partab Singh. Rameshwar Prasad had two sons Jagat Narain and Krishna Narayan. In 1864 certain property was purchased by Nityanand in the name of his wife. After the death of the parents, Rameshwar Prasad and Babu Partap Singh, on 20 January 1912, executed two sale-deeds of this property, each purporting to sell a half of one-third of mauza. Kashipur by each sale-deed. By the two transactions jointly then these two persons purported to transfer the whole of one-third of mauza Kashipur.

(2.) It is admitted that two-thirds of mauza, Kashipur had previously been sold for Rs. 15,000 and the sale price of this remaining one-third was Rs. l0.000. In view of these facts it is admitted that there can be no question but that the property fetched a full and fair value. The reason given for the sale of the property was that it was inconvenient to manage it, and again it is admitted that the property was situated 19 miles away from Bijnor; that neither of the two brothers lived in the locality; both had their permanent occupations elsewhere; and it was very difficult for them to manage the property successfully and to the benefit of the family. This is tantamount to saying, and it is frankly admitted, that in the ordinary sense of the term the transactions of sale were for the benefit of the family. The only question calling for decision is whether the transactions were for "the benefit of the estate," as the expression is used in Hindu law. One further fact calls for mention and that is that it is not disputed that the intention of the vendors was to devote the proceeds to the purchase of other landed property in a more accessible situation. The Rs. 10,000 was in fact placed in a bank and for one year drew a substantial interest and then the bank failed. But it is not denied that the intention with which the property was sold was to buy other property, and the fact that the money was actually lost owing to the failure of the bank is only an incident which can have no bearing on the question we have to decide. It is admitted that the family was a joint family, and that the property transferred by the two sale-deeds of 1912 was joint family property. The present suit has beer brought by the two sons, Jagat Narain and Krishna Narain, of Rameshwar Prasad to set aside the sales on the ground that they were not justified by Hindu law.

(3.) The case has been referred to us because of a conflict between certain rulings of this Court. As their Lordships, in referring the case to this Full Bench have put it: A wider meaning was attached to the expression "benefit of the estate" in Tula Ram V/s. Tulshi Ram [1920] 42 All. 559, Mahabir Prasad V/s. Amla Prasad A.I.R. 1924 All. 379, Jado Singh V/s. Nathu Singh , B. Sadhusaran, Prasad V/s. Brahmdeo Prasad A.I.R. 1921 Patna 99, Kalika Nand Singh V/s. Shiva Nandan Singh A.I.R. 1922 Patna 122, and Tahal Singh V/s. Arjun Das [1920] P.H.C.C. 155. On the other hand the expression has been taken in a narrower sense in the cases of Shankar Sahai V/s. Baichu Ram and Bhagwan Das V/s. Mahadeo Prasad A.I.R. 1923 All. 298."