Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that a Karta’s authority to sell joint family property extends to meeting obligations linked to a daughter’s marriage, even when the wedding has already taken place. Stressing that matrimonial expenses often leave families indebted for years, the Court recognized repayment of such liabilities as a valid ground of “legal necessity.” Setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s contrary view, the Bench upheld the alienation of the Hindu Undivided Family land as a binding and lawful transaction undertaken by the Karta.

The plaintiff alleged that the suit property belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which his father was the Karta and he, along with his brothers, were coparceners. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant—his father—was addicted to alcohol and had indulged in wasteful expenditure. To finance this lifestyle, he disposed of various parcels of HUF land for inadequate consideration. The plaintiff claimed that his father had promised not to sell the suit land and to safeguard the interests of all sons by creating deposits. It was further alleged that he assured larger sums would be settled in favour of the younger sons, while the suit land would be divided between the plaintiff and the second defendant. Contrary to these assurances, the Karta executed a sale deed on 26 July 1995 in favour of the fifth defendant.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Death Penalty in 2014 Child Rape-Murder Case Set Aside | Accused Acquitted as Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The plaintiff asserted that the sale deed was executed without consideration and in collusion with some family members, including the third and fourth defendants. He claimed ignorance of the transaction until December 1999, when he was informed of the same. Despite assurances from the father and other defendants that the deed would be cancelled, no steps were taken, compelling him to institute a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed was null and void, along with partition and separate possession.

The fifth defendant contested, stating that the Karta had agreed to sell the property for valuable consideration. It was asserted that part-payment was made in June 1994 and acknowledged through an agreement for sale signed by the Karta’s wife, daughter Kashibai, and the fourth defendant. The balance was paid in July 1995, culminating in a registered sale deed. The purchaser maintained that the transaction was undertaken to meet the marriage expenses of the daughter and that possession was delivered thereafter.

The Trial Court framed issues including entitlement to share, joint possession, and bona fide purchase. On evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held the sale was for legal necessity and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court reversed this finding, decreeing partition in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court under civil appellate jurisdiction.

The Court identified the central issue as “Whether the suit land was sold to 5th defendant for legal necessity i.e. the marriage of daughter Kashibai?” It recorded that the first defendant was the Karta of an HUF and had disposed of several immovable properties earlier. The Court stated, “Right of a Karta to sell joint family property is well settled. Karta enjoys wide discretion with regard to existence of legal necessity and in what way such necessity can be fulfilled.”

Quoting precedent, the Bench stated, “A coparcener who has right to claim a share in the joint Hindu family estate cannot seek injunction against the Karta restraining him from dealing with or entering into a transaction from sale of the joint Hindu family property, albeit post alienation has a right to challenge the alienation if the same is not for legal necessity or for betterment of the estate.”

The Court observed that although the plaintiff alleged that his father had engaged in extravagant habits, no earlier alienations were ever challenged. It recorded, “In view of such conduct, the Trial Court rightly inferred the earlier sale transactions of HUF properties were for financial needs and the plea that the previous HUF assets were disposed of to meet the Karta’s extravagant habits was an afterthought.”

With respect to the marriage of Kashibai, the Court stated, “It is true Kashibai’s marriage had taken place in 1991, couple of years prior to the 1st defendant-Karta entering into sale of the suit property for valuable consideration. It is common knowledge families incur heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters and such debts have a cascading effect on family finances down the years.”

On the conduct of the purchaser, the Court observed, “The 5th defendant-purchaser, through deft cross examination of the plaintiff and other evidence, has established a clear nexus between the sale transaction and the expenses undertaken for Kashibai’s marriage and has thereby discharged the onus.”

Regarding burden of proof, the Court stated, “Onus of proof on the stranger-purchaser cannot run counter to the principle of reverse burden enshrined in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and saddle him with the liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of the coparceners of the HUF.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Income of Abandoning Parent Irrelevant for EWS Certificate | Relief Granted to Meritorious Student for NIFT Admission

The Court also recorded, “Conduct of the plaintiff in belatedly challenging the sale transaction after five years in the year 2000 raises grave doubt regarding his bona fides.”

The Court concluded: “In fine, we are of the view the High Court erred in holding the sale in favour of 5th defendant was not for legal necessity and the latter was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.”

“As such, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and uphold the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Abhay Choudhary M, Adv., Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Adv., Mr. Vivek Ram R, Adv., Mrs. Parvati Bhat, Adv., Mr. Savyasachi, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shreyas Mahale, Adv., Mr. John Babu, Adv., Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR

Case Title: Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1120
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 5340/2017
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Joymalya Bagchi