MURARKA PROPERTIES (P) LTD. & ANR. versus BEHARILAL MURARKA AND OTHERS

MURARKA PROPERTIES (P) LTD. & ANR. versus BEHARILAL MURARKA AND OTHERS

The family of Ramniranjandas Murarka became divided in status sometime before 1932 or, at the latest, by the documents executed in 1932. Even if a joint family existed, the conveyances transferring properties to the company, made by all eight sons acting as Karta of their respective branches, were for the benefit of the family, resulting from joint deliberation and unanimous decision. Such transactions are valid and binding on all coparceners, and cannot be challenged by descendants who originally affirmed the alienations.

Parties
Appellant: Murarka Properties (P) Ltd.; Respondent: Beharilal Morarka; Respondent: Ginni Morarka; Respondent: Respondent No. 5; Respondent: Respondents 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 21-23, 35-37, 39-41, 47; Respondent: Respondents 20, 42-44; Respondent: Respondent No. 19(a); Respondent: Respondents 12 (a & b); Respondent: Respondents 13 and 14; Respondent: Respondents 25-26; Respondent: Respondents 10, 31 to 33
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 November 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joint Hindu Family, Partition, Coparcenary, Alienation and Transfers, Family Benefit
Hindu Law Property Law Joint Hindu Family Partition Coparcenary Alienation and Transfers Family Benefit

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murarka Properties (P) Ltd.

Appellant

Beharilal Morarka

Respondent

Ginni Morarka

Respondent

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Respondents 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 21-23, 35-37, 39-41, 47

Respondent

Respondents 20, 42-44

Respondent

Respondent No. 19(a)

Respondent

Respondents 12 (a & b)

Respondent

Respondents 13 and 14

Respondent

Respondents 25-26

Respondent

Respondents 10, 31 to 33

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conveyance by sons of a common ancestor to a company constituted a disruption of the joint family
  2. 2 Whether such conveyances were valid and binding on all coparceners if effected for the benefit of the family

Ratio Decidendi

The family of Ramniranjandas Murarka became divided in status sometime before 1932 or, at the latest, by the documents executed in 1932. Even if a joint family existed, the conveyances transferring properties to the company, made by all eight sons acting as Karta of their respective branches, were for the benefit of the family, resulting from joint deliberation and unanimous decision. Such transactions are valid and binding on all coparceners, and cannot be challenged by descendants who originally affirmed the alienations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decree of the trial court set aside as regards appellants, Defendants 12 and 13.
  • Costs to be paid by contesting respondents (legal representatives of R-12: Bimla and Rahul, R-20, and his three sons R-42, R-43, R-44).