HUF Ancestral Property Can Be Gifted Only For Pious Purposes: It Cannot Be Given Out Of Love & Affection: Supreme Court

CASE TITLE:
KC Laxmana vs KC Chandrappa Gowda

DATE OF ORDER:
19th April, 2022

JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: K.C. LAXMANA
RESPONDENT: K.C. CHANDRAPPA &ANR

SUBJECT

The fundamental question in this case was whether Article 58 of the Limitation Act applied to the present case and whether the first defendant's property transfer in favour of the second defendant was for a religious purpose?

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 109

BRIEF FACTS

• K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (Plaintiff) sued his father, K.S. Chinne Gowda, and another K.C. Laxmana for division and separate possession of his one­ third portion in the suit ­schedule property, as well as a declaration that the first defendant's gift/settlement was null and void. The joint family of himself, the first defendant, and one K.C. Subraya Gowda owned the schedule property.
• He argued that because the second defendant was neither a coparcener or a member of their family, the first defendant had no authority to transfer the schedule property to him.
• The first defendant indicated in his written statement that the second defendant was raised by the first defendant and that he settled the suit property in favour of the second defendant out of love and affection.
• The lawsuit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court later overturned the decision and dismissed the case. The defendants second appeal was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, which maintained the appellate court's decision.

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER

The petitioner, claimed that:

• the first defendant's alienation by means of gift of joint family property to the second defendant was void.
• Under Article 109 of the 4 Second Schedule to the Limitation Act, the time restriction for challenging an alienation is twelve years from the day the alienee obtains control of the property.

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT

The respondent made two arguments in their appeal to the Apex court:

• The transfer of property by way of settlement was for a religious purpose, which is legal.
• The suit was barred by limitation because the facts of the case were covered by Article 58 of the Limitation Act of 1963.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

• The Supreme Court held that Article 58 had no application in the case.
• The period of limitation for filing a suit to obtain any other declaration is set out in Article 58 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act. The statute of limitations in this article runs for three years from the day on which the right to sue first arises. It's a residuary article that governs any declaration suits that aren't covered by any of the other articles in the Limitation Act.
• Article 109 is a specific article that applies when a son challenges his father's alienation, the property is ancestral, and the parties are subject to Mitakshara law. In general, where a statute incorporates both general and specific provisions, the latter must take precedence.

CONCLUSION

The word 'alienation' also includes the word 'gift,' according to the court. The following conditions must be met in order to invoke Article 109:

1. the parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara;
2. the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the request of the son;
3. the property is ancestral property; and
4. the alienee has taken possession of the property alienated by the father.

The appeal was denied by the judge because the donation deed in this case was not for any charitable or religious purpose.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement