ition Civil Nos
999 of 1988 and 1043 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
RK Jain Rakesh K Khanna Ms Sangeeta Mandal Surya Kant and RP Singh NP for the Petitioners
106 section Hegde Additional Solicitor General Ms A Subha shini Ms Uma Jain and RK Mehta for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
Both these are applications under article 32 of the Constitution the first one by three peti tioners and the second by one
The respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences has been set up under a Cen tral Act of that name of 1956
Section 13 of the Act pro vides the objects of the Institute which are a to develop patterns of teaching in udergraduate and post graduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India b to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity and c to attain self suffi ciency in post graduate medical education
 Section 14 of the Act lays down the functions of the Institute and inter alia provides in cls
a and b 14
With a view to the promotion of the objects specified under section 13 the Institute may a provide for undergraduate and post graduate teaching in the science of modern medicine and other allied sciences including physical and biological sciences b provide facilities for research in the various branches of such sciences Petitioners have alleged that ever since its inception the Institute has taken up various research projects and has made valuable contribution to the updating of medical knowl edge and building up coordinated research activity
For the purposes of carrying out such research programme in conjunc tion with the world Health Organisation the Indian Council of Medical Research and other celebrated organisations both national and international research projects are undertaken by the Institute by employing researchers
For the carrying out of the assignments of research projects the petitioners were employed more than a decade ago and their assertion to the effect that 107 they have continuously worked for more than 10 15 years has not been disputed
Petitioners have also asserted that they have worked to the satisfaction of the authorities and the guides and there is no denial of that fact too
It is the case of the petitioners that by working for such a long period continuously and in different projects under differ ent guides they have picked up the requisite expertise which would be useful in carrying out any normal research project
Petitioners allege that there is work in the hands of the Institute but petitioners  employment excepting in the case of Dr Jasbir Kaur Dhawan Kochhar petitioner No 3 in the first writ petition as Researchers have now been terminated
They contend that having worked for a long period in the Institute they have reached an age in life where they are no more entitled to enter into Government service or any other suitable public employment
While they have gathered the requisite expertise and are useful for the purpose of assisting research programme with the deprivation of their employment and faced with the ban of over age for any public employment they are deprived of the source of sustenance and the nation is deprived of their useful serv ice
The Institute the Union of India in the Ministry of Health and the Indian Council of Medical Research have responded to the notice on the petition
A common affidavit has been filed purporting to be on behalf of the respondents by the Director of the Institute
It has been stated therein that the Institute is assigned projects and the Project Guides pick up Researchers depending upon suitability
The employment is project wise and once the project is complete the job comes to an end
The fact that there has been con tinuous engagement available to the petitioners does not change the nature of employment and the fortuitous circum stance of continuity does not confer any right in the peti tioners to be continued in employment even when the Insti tute does not have any research project in hand
It has been specifically pleaded that the services of the petitioners are not required any longer in the absence of any research project with the Institute where their services would be suitable
The other two respondents being the Union of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research have not filed any counter affidavit of their own
The Institute and the Union of India appeared through separate Advocates at the time of hearing
Mr Hegde learned Additional Solicitor General indicat ed his sympathy to the cause of the petitioners and took an adjournment from the Court to explore the possibility of offering a solution to the 108 problem and returned to tell us that though there was a human problem no solution could be worked out
The Institute set up by statute is intended to carry on research in a continuous way to improve the level of medical knowledge
Under the Act the Institute is an autonomous body though the Chairman thereof is no other than the Union Minister of Health
It is true that the Institute is en trusted from time to time with research projects by the World Health Organisation the Indian Council of Medical Research and other government and semi government bodies
It is appropriate that a scheme should be evolved by the Insti tute in coordination with the Health Ministry and the Indian 2Council of Medical Research so that a team of researchers is built up to meet the general requirements of research
It is quite possible that certain projects would require spe cialised hands and on such occasions a special team could be set up on casual basis by drawing the competent hands from different institutions for a period but to keep up the tempo of research if a team of researchers is built up it would be convenient for the Institute for purposes of discipline and control as also for efficiency
The Health Ministry must also sponsor continuous research projects in the field of medicine and health and for such purpose several projects should be listed out from time to time and entrusted to the respondent Institute as also a similar Institute at Chandi garh and to institutes as and when set up elsewhere
This would assist in updating relevant medical information and knowledge apart from building up a scientific tone and temper for general circulation
We commend that the Insti tute initiates seriously action in this regard without delay and we suggest that the Ministry of Health and the Indian Council of Medical Research collaborate with the Institute to work out the same
Respondent no3 Indian Council of Medical Research has not chosen to appear separately before us inspite of service of notice
Since we have been told that the respondent Institute has immediately no scope to employ the petitioners excepting the one that we have named above we direct that the remaining three petitioners in these two petitions should be provided employment either as Researchers or in any suitable alternative employment until their inclusion in a team of researchers is considered
The Indian Council of Medical Research shall take appropriate steps to offer adequate employment to the three petitioners within two months hence
If the question of funding becomes necessary we direct the Ministry of Health to cooperate and place adequate funds at the disposal of the Indian Council of Medical Research
109 These two petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions and without any order for costs with liberty to the petitioners to apply with the fond hope that all con cerned will appreciate the spirit of the order and implement the direction in the proper way as stipulated
NPV Petitions disposed of


Summary:
B  who received some agricultural lands and a house in the partition of his ancestral properties and his minor sons H  and R  Respondent mortgaged their properties for a sum of Rs5500 by executing a conditional sale deed on 22nd April 1948 in favour of N 
But by a reconveyance deed dated 11th February 1953 they got their properties reconveyed in their favour by N 
On the sameday ie 11 th February 1953 they sold some agricultural lands and the house for Rs5500 to M  Appellant who was brother of N 
Subsequently M  sold the house to W  and others
The remaining land was sold by them on the same date to V  and his brother B s sons and wife Plaintiffs filed a suit against M  Defendant No 1 V  and his brother Defendant No 2 and 3 W  and others Defendant No 4 to 8 and B  Defendant No 9 for a decree of possession of the agricultural lands and house which came in their share as members of the Joint Hindu Family contending that alienation made by B  was not binding on them because it was neither for any legal neces sity nor for the benefit of the minors or their Estate but was for satisfying the personal needs of B  who had the vices of drinking and gambling and was spending everything he used to earn in his business of grain delali
41 The Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that i B  was not indulging in any vices ii the alienation made by B  was for the satisfaction of  the antecedent debt due on mortgage  and iii B  was a broker who needed cash capital for his business and iv the plaintiffs and B  were estopped from challenging the title of W  and others since W  and others Defendant No 4 to 8 had spent Rs25000 on the reconstruction of the house purchased from M  within the knowledge of plaintiffs and without their objection
Plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the High COurt contending that M  and N  ran a family firm of which they were owners and the execution of the conditional sale deed reconveyance deed and the subsequent sale deed of the same day were nothing but a device and were really a part of one and the same transaction and that if the original transac tion of 22nd April 1948 of the conditional sale with N  was not valid and binding on the minor sons of B  then the subsequent transaction of 11th February 1953 for payment of debt or liability due under that alienation cannot be supported
Allowing the appeal the High Court reversed the judg ment of the Trial Court had passed a decree for possession of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs by hold ing i that the transactions dated 22nd April 1948 as well as all other transactions of 11th February 1953 were part of the same transaction ii that since transaction dated 22nd April 1948 was invalid because it was not supported by any legal necessity then the subsequent transactions of sale and reconveyance of 11th February 1953 were also invalid
Hence this appeal by special leave by the defend ants
Allowing the appeal in part this Court HELD 1
The doctrine of pious obligation under which sons are held liable to discharge their father s debts is based only on religious considerations
This doctrine inevi tably postulates that the father s debts must be vyavaharik
If the debts are not vyavaharik or are vyavaharik the doc trine of pious obligation cannot be invoked
59E Luhar Amrit Lal Nagji vs Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal  Ors   relied on
Where the sons are joint with their father and debts have been contracted by the father even for his own personal benefit the sons are liable to pay the debts provided they were not incurred for an immoral 42 or illegal purpose and such debts were antecedent to the alienations impugned
61B 21 Even if any loan is taken by the father for his personal benefit which is found as vyavaharik debt and not avyavaharik the sons are liable to discharge their father s debts under the doctrine of pious obligation and if any alienation of the joint family property is subsequently made to discharge such antecedent debt or loan of the father such alienation would be binding on the sons
6 ID Mulla Principles of Hindu Law 15th Edn
Paragraph 295 lrukulapati Venkateshwara Rao vs Vemuri Amayya  Ors
 AIR 1939 Mad 561 referred to
Vyankates Dhonddeo Deshpande vs Sou
Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni  Ors 1979 1 955 relied on
Atchutaramayya vs Ratanjee Bhootaji 1926 AIR Mad 211 Suraj Bansi Koer vs Sheo Prasad Singh 6 IA 88 PC cited
Benares Bank Ltd vs Hari Narain  Ors LIX IA 300 distinguished
Antecedent debt means antecedent in fact as well as in time ie to say that the debt must be truly independent and not part of the transaction impeached
To constitute a debt an antecedent debt it is not necessary that the prior and subsequent creditors should be different persons
All that is necessary is that the two transactions must be disassociated in time as well as in fact
53E F Mulla Principles of Hindu Law 15th Edn
paragraph 295 Brij Narain vs Mangala Prasad AIR 1924 PC 50 referred to 4
It is necessary to examine each transaction independ ently and then to arrive at a conclusion whether such a transaction or alienation can be held to be valid or not
52G H 41 The approach of the High Court in considering trans action dated 22nd April 1948 as well as all the other transactions of 11th February 1953 being part of the same transaction is not correct
57B 5
The conditional sale deed dated 22nd April 1948 was not void even if the amount was taken by B  for his person al benefit of starting a 43 new business of grain
It was an independent transaction both in fact as well as in time to the subsequent transac tions of 11th February 1953
The transaction of reconvey ance deed dated 11th February 1953 was for the benefit of not only B  but for the entire family including the plain tiffs
There was no consideration for this reconveyance of the property except the transaction of sale made in favour of M  on 11th February 1953
This sale deed was perfectly valid and was made in order to pay the antecedent debt
57F G 6
So far as the house property is concerned the Trial Court s finding that defendants Nos 4 to 8 had spent Rs25000 on the reconstruction of the house within the knowledge and without the objection of the plaintiffs Nos 1 and 2 and as such plaintiffs No 1 and 2 and defendant No 9 were estopped from challenging the title of those defendants had not been set aside by the High Court
This finding of the High Court has to be upheld
61F G 7
So far as the transactions of sale of the remaining properties in favour of V  and his brother are concerned they stand on a different footing altogether
The High Court in this regard has recorded a clear finding that the afore said alienations were made neither for any legal necessity nor for the benefit of the State nor for payment of any antecedent debt
61H 62B The evidence in this regard is also fully convincing that the aforesaid transaction had no connection with pay ment of any antecedent debt
The finding of the High Court has to be upheld in this regard
62C 8
Accordingly the Judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside to the extent of granting a decree for possession of the house property and agricultural lands sold in favour of M  on 11th February 1953 and the suit with regard to these properties is dismissed
The rest of the Judgment and decree of the High Court in respect of agricultural lands which were alienated in favour of V  and his brother is maintained and the suit of the plaintiffs for possession with regard to these properties stands decreed
62D E