Jagannath Rangnath Chavan vs. Suman Sahebrao Ghawte & Ors AIR 2014 (NOC) 491 (Bom)
One Mr. Nana had three children – one son by name Tukaram and two daughters Suman (Plaintiff No.1) and Shanti aka Vimal (Plaintiff No.2). The two daughters had filed a suit against the present appellant, who was defendant no.1 and another defendant, challenging the sale deed dated 28-03-1968 executed by their brother Tukaram in favour of the present appellant/defendant no.1 and, in the alternative, for partition and separate possession.
Nana had died on 19-07-1967. The plaintiff no.1, Suman was already married and had gone to reside with her husband at her matrimonial place; whereas plaintiff no.2 Shanti aka Vimal was a minor, who resided with Tukaram. Tukaram had the responsibility of marrying plaintiff no.2 Shanti aka Vimal, since there was no other male member in the family except him. Tukaram vide sale deed on 29- 12-1967 sold the suit land on 28-03-1968 to defendant no.1. As there was no other source of livelihood/income to Tukaram, he applied the sale proceeds for performing rituals, maintenance of the family and for performing marriage of Shanti aka Vimal (Plaintiff No.2). Tukaram died on 03-12-1971. After his death, both the sisters had filed the suit on 29-09-1973.
The appellant (defendant no.1) filed his written statement and contested the claim made by the plaintiffs, principally on the ground that Tukaram, after the death of Nana, became the Karta of the family, being the eldest son remaining in the family due to marriage of plaintiff no. 1 and for legal necessity, he was compelled to sell the suit land and the said transaction of sale was binding on the plaintiffs who could not have questioned the sale deed. On one of the issues, the trial Court held that Tukaram was the Karta of the family and the legal necessity was duly proved and, therefore, the sale deed was binding and could not be questioned.
The court observed that it will be revolutionary of all accepted principles of Hindu law to suppose that the seniormost female member of a joint Hindu family, even though she has adult sons who are entitled as coparceners to the absolute ownership of the property, could be the manager of the family. She would be the guardian of her minor sons till the eldest of them becomes a major, but she would not be manager of the joint family for she is not a coparcener.
Thus, the court held that a female, in normal circumstances and particularly as in the instant case when a male is available is not eligible to become a manager or Karta of the family, he being the son and, as such, it was only Tukaram the major son who was left Karta sui juris in the family. Hence, Tukaram was the only eligible and competent person of the family after the death of Nana to act as Karta/manager.
