In Brief
M.R. Vinoda and three co-plaintiffs challenged a 1969 relinquishment deed executed by their elder brother in favour of their uncle, claiming it was void because one plaintiff was a minor at the time. The High Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation (filed 25 years later in 1994). The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that: (1) the Karta (family head) can alienate joint family property even with minor coparceners' interests, if done for legal necessity or family benefit; (2) here, the relinquishment was valid as it settled inter-branch accounts following the uncle's substantial payments to redeem mortgaged properties; (3) the suit was barred by Articles 58, 59, and 109 of the Limitation Act, and the plaintiffs' claim of ignorance was rejected as specious and untrue.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.