The plaintiffs appellants who were all members of the Joint Hindu family filed a suit to have declared the aforesaid sale as illegal and void on the plea that the transaction was vitiated by fraud, mis representation and taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of Nidhi and Satyabhama, widows.
The trial companyrt on assessment of the evidence, decreed the suit, but the lower appellate companyrt rejected the case of the plaintiff appellants with regard to fraud, undue influence, mis representation etc.
The facts Dhanu Bal and Param Bal were two brothers companystituting a Joint Hindu Family.
The suit was resisted by the defendants respondents on the plea that Jagabandhu was literate even though the widows were number, and had executed the sale deed as Karta of the family to which the other widow executants had supportively joined him in the execution of the sale deed for themselves and as guardians of the mino members of the Joint Hindu Family.
The second appeal by the plaintiffs appellants was dismissed in limine, for the High Court was of the view that numbersubstantial question of law arose, requiring determination.
Hence this appeal.
Dhanu Bal, Param Bal and Raghu Bal died.
Param Bal had a son, Raghu bal.
Dhanu Bal had a wife, Nidhi, an adult son, Jag Bandhu and a few minor sons.
Raghu Bal had a wife Satyabhama and a few minor sons.
Jag Bandhu as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, joining with him the widows Nidhi for herself and as guardian of her minor sons and Satyabhama for herself and as guardian of her minor sons, executed a sale deed pertaining to certain joint family lands in favour of the first defendant respondents on 23 3 1971, who made a further sale in favour of the second defendant respondent.
PUNCHHI, J. Leave was granted in this appeal to companysider the question posed whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act were applicable to the Joint Hindu Family property sold or disposed of by the Karta.
