K. C. KAPOOR versus RADHIKA DEVI (DEAD) BY L.RS. & OTHERS

K. C. KAPOOR versus RADHIKA DEVI (DEAD) BY L.RS. & OTHERS

High Court was not justified in interfering with the factual findings of the trial and first appellate courts. The sale by the karta was for legal necessity, and plaintiff No.1 was estopped from contesting due to her conduct and representations. The circumstances established sufficient joint family funds for the acquisition and alienation of property. The findings on legal necessity and estoppel, being findings of fact based on evidence, could not be disturbed in second appeal.

Parties
Appellant: K.C. Kapoor; Respondent No.1: Radhika Devi (Dead) by L. Rs.; Respondent No.2 (plaintiff No.2): Gajendra Narain; Respondent No.3 (plaintiff No.3): Sunil; Defendant No.2: Parmeshwar Din Misra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 October 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 19th February, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court (lucknow Bench) in Second Appeal No. 362 of 1966
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joint Hindu Family Property, Estoppel, Legal Necessity, Alienation by Karta, Second Appeal Scope
Hindu Law Property Law Civil Procedure Joint Hindu Family Property Estoppel Legal Necessity Alienation by Karta Second Appeal Scope

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.C. Kapoor

Appellant

Radhika Devi (Dead) by L. Rs.

Respondent No.1

Gajendra Narain

Respondent No.2 (plaintiff No.2)

Sunil

Respondent No.3 (plaintiff No.3)

Parmeshwar Din Misra

Defendant No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 19th February, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court (lucknow Bench) in Second Appeal No. 362 of 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale of joint Hindu family property was justified by legal necessity
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff No.1 was estopped from contesting the sale
  3. 3 Whether it was open to the High Court to interfere with findings of fact in second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

High Court was not justified in interfering with the factual findings of the trial and first appellate courts. The sale by the karta was for legal necessity, and plaintiff No.1 was estopped from contesting due to her conduct and representations. The circumstances established sufficient joint family funds for the acquisition and alienation of property. The findings on legal necessity and estoppel, being findings of fact based on evidence, could not be disturbed in second appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment set aside
  • Decree of District Judge restored