- In the case of KC Laxmana vs KC Chandrappa Gowda the Apex Court has held that a Hindu Father or any other member of Hindu Undivided Family has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a pious purpose and the same cannot be done out of love and affection as the same does not come within the scope of the term pious purpose.
- In the instant case, one KC Chandrappa Gowda filed a suit against his father Chinne Gowda and one KC Laxmana for the partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled property and for a declaration that the gift made by his father Chinne Gowda in favour of KC Laxamana as null and void.
- The property in dispute belonged to the joint family which consisted of himself, his father Chinne Gowda and one KC Subraya Gowda. He contended that Chinne Gowda had no right to transfer the property to KC Laxmana as he was neither a coparcener nor a member of his family.
- In the written statement, the defendant Chinne Gowda contended that KC Laxmana was brought up by him and out of love and affection he settled the suit property in his favour. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but the first Appellate Court decreed the suit. The Karnataka HC dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and upheld the decision of the Appellate Court.
- Referring to the Limitation Act, the Apex Court observed that Article 58 would have no impact in the present case. Article 58 provides for the period of limitation of 3 years to file a suit to obtain any declaration. The Court observed that the present case would be governed by Article 109 which specifically applies to cases in which alienation done by the father can be challenged by the son and property is ancestral and the parties are governed by the Mitakshara Law. The general rule is that when a statute contains both general as well as a specific provision, the latter prevails.
- According to Article 109, the limitation period which would govern this particular case is 12 years from the date the alienee takes possession of the scheduled property. Taking note of the relevant dates, the Court observed that the suit was not barred by limitation.
- The Court further observed that a Karta of a HUF can alienate joint family property in three situations, legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate and with the consent of all the coparceners of the property. Referring to the case of Thimmaiah and ors. vs Ningamma and anr. the Court observed that where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, the same is voidable at the option of the coparcener whose consent was not obtained. Thus, in the present case, the alienation of the property in favour of the second defendant (Laxmana) was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff whose consent had not been taken.
- The Court also went on to observe that a Hindu father or any karta of a HUF can alienate the property via gift for any pious purpose, which means a gift can be made for a religious or a charitable purpose. A deed of gift made out of natural love and affection does not fall into this category of pious purpose. The Court referred to the case of Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh and ors. vs. Mallappa Chanbasappa and anr. AIR 1964 SC.
- Thus, in light of the aforementioned observations, the appeal was dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
