[After stating the facts as above]—In any event, every member of an unaided family has a vested interest in joint family property, which interests will be affected by transactions into by him in favour of purchasers for value (vide-Ayyagiri Venkata Ramayya v. Ayyagiri Ramayya(1). The conveyance therefore cannot be held to be inoperative and void by reason that the property conveyed was not vested in the vendor at the date of the conveyance; The validity and operation of the conveyance should be decided on the footing that it is a conveyance of ancestral property made by a Hindu father, the managing member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his two minor sons. The conveyance (exhibit 6) on the very face of it, purport's to be made partly for valuable consideration and in the main, in return for favours shown to the vendor and His father and help rendered to the vendor and his brother in connection with the partition suit, by the vendee (first defendant herein) who was also the maternal uncle of the vendor. The estimated, value of the property (conveyed) is about Rs. 1,000 and the valuable consideration for the conveyance is recited to be only Rs. 1,000, being a portion of the debt then due from the vendor to the vendee,; on accounts between them. It was sought to be established (in the present suit) on behalf of the first defendant that there was an agreement between him on the one hand and Ramasami Chetti and his brother (plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 213 of 1893) on the other, that he was to render them services in regard to the partition, suit, in consideration of their promise to convey the house and ground to him (the same having originally belonged to, the vendee's family), and that the conveyance was made in pursuance of such agreement, after the successful termination of the partition suit. We are clearly of opinion that the first defendant, the maternal uncle of Ramasami Chetti, never entered into any such oral agreement with his nephews, but help them in the conduct of that suit only as a close relative interested in them. If there was any such agreement, it is incredible that it would not have been recited in the conveyance (exhibit 6). Exhibit 6 is in effect a conveyance for value to the extent of Rs; 1,000, and conveyance by way of gift to the extent of Rs. 1,000, and if the property conveyed had been the sole and separate property of Ramasami Chetti, the conveyance would be perfectly valid and operative in its entirety. But as the property conveyed was the joint property of himself and his two sons, effect cannot be given to the conveyance as if Ramasami Chetti was the sole owner of the whole property or, of even a third part thereof. It has now been definitely settled by judicial decisions that it is incompetent to an under video member of a Hindu family, to alienate by way of gift his undivided share or any portion thereof and that such alienation is void in ioto, and this principle cannot be evaded by the undivided member professing to make an alienation for value, when such value is manifestly, inadequate and inequitable. In such a case, the transaction can be upheld against the family, in respect of the alienor's interest in the joint family property, only to the extent of the value received.” There is, in the present case, no doubt, that Ramasami Chetti, the father, was indebted to the first defendant to the extent of about Rs. 1,030 at the time of the conveyance and it is not alleged nor has any attempt been made to show that this debt was incurred for any illegal or immoral purpose; and the conveyance was made partly in discharge of Rs. 1,000 of such antecedent debt and if the conveyance had been of a reasonable portion of joint family property (for the discharge of such debt), the conveyance, as such would bind the sons also. Under the circumstances of the case the first defendant is not entitled to claim the benefit of the conveyance as such, either in respect of the whole house and ground or of the father's one-third share therein which, subsequent to the conveyance, has become vested in the Official Assignee. But as he has paid value to the extent of Rs. 1,000, and that amount as an antecedent debt of the father is binding also upon his minor sons, he has an equitable charge on the whole of the property to the extent of Rs. 1,000, with interest thereon, at 9 per cent, per annum from the 18th December 1899 (the date of the conveyance). He will be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 45 per mensem from the 18th December 1899, till the end of January 1903 (when it is represented he was ejected from the house, in execution of the decree appealed against), setting off the amount of rent thus due against the sum of Rs. 1,000 and the interest thereon. The result is that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the house and ground in question and the sum of Rs. 403-12-0 besides costs. The decree appealed against is accordingly varied and as the appeal substantially fails, the appellants) must pay the costs of the respondent.
Mr. S. Subbayya Chetty, attorney, for appellants.
Messrs Branson & Branson, attorneys, for respondent.