Summary
The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a family members’ suit attacking their karta’s sale and an earlier title decree in favour of the purchasers. The concurrent findings established legal necessity and family benefit, making the sale binding on the family, while the plaintiffs failed to establish their contrary case or share basis. Their admitted institution of the suit at the seller-brother’s instigation supported the finding of collusion to obstruct execution of the earlier decree.
Issues
- Whether the family members could avoid the karta’s sale and the earlier title decree on this record.
- Whether the concurrent findings of legal necessity, family benefit and collusion warranted interference.
Held
- The concurrent findings rested on proper appreciation of facts and law and disclosed no ground for appellate interference. (¶¶ 19–20, 27)
- The prior finding concerning the karta’s sale bound the seller and the plaintiff family members. A sale established to be for legal necessity and family benefit bound all members, including these plaintiffs. (¶ 22–24)
- The plaintiffs failed to plead and prove absence of family benefit or legal necessity, or the basis of their claimed share. The purchasers proved necessity and benefit on the evidence. (¶ 25)
- The plaintiffs admitted suing at their brother’s instigation. In the circumstances, the suit was collusive and aimed at overcoming the purchasers’ valid decree and avoiding its execution. (¶¶ 21, 26)
Result
Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit. Concurrent dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit and the impugned High Court judgment left undisturbed.