Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-005340-005340 – 2017 |
| Diary Number | 32103/2011 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on Karta’s power to alienate joint family property |
| Type of Law | Hindu law — joint family property and succession |
| Questions of Law | Whether the suit land was sold by the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family to meet the daughter’s marriage expenses and thus amounted to legal necessity binding on all coparceners? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a Karta enjoys wide discretion to determine legal necessity under Hindu law and that matrimonial expenses can create a continuing financial need justifying alienation of HUF property. Receipts signed by coparceners and the daughter whose marriage was funded, along with mutation records, established nexus between sale and legal necessity. Onus under Section 106 Evidence Act cannot be shifted onto a stranger-purchaser to prove distribution within the family. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The Karta sold nine acres of joint family land in 1995; receipts signed by wife, daughter and two coparceners linked the sale consideration to matrimonial expenses. Mutation entries and possession supported bona fide purchase; plaintiff knew of prior HUF sales and did not challenge them until 2000—five years after the sale in question. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals in property-partition and HUF-law disputes |
| Distinguishes | High Court of Karnataka’s judgment reversing trial-court finding on legal necessity |
| Follows | Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Matrimonial expenses may give rise to a continuing “legal necessity” under Articles 241 & 254 of Mulla, even if the marriage pre-dates the alienation by several years.
- Receipts signed by coparceners and the beneficiary of marriage-expenses strengthen the nexus between sale consideration and legal necessity.
- The reverse burden under Section 106 Evidence Act protects bona fide purchasers: they need not prove distribution of sale proceeds among all coparceners.
- Delay in challenging a Karta’s sale, especially when possession and mutation records exist, undermines a coparcener’s plea of fraudulent alienation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The suit land belonged to an HUF whose Karta sold it in 1995.
- The trial court found sale justified by legal necessity (marriage expenses of daughter).
- The High Court reversed, doubting nexus because marriage occurred years earlier and purchaser failed to verify distribution.
- Supreme Court reaffirmed:
- A Karta’s discretion in assessing legal necessity is wide (Beereddy Reddy; Narayan Bal).
- Articles 254 & 241 of Mulla define legal necessity to include coparcenary matrimonial expenses.
- Receipts signed by Karta’s wife, daughter and coparceners establish clear nexus.
- Under Section 106 Evidence Act, a stranger-purchaser need not prove internal family accounting.
- Mutation and continued possession corroborate bona fide purchase.
- High Court’s specious reasoning on timing of marriage and lack of enquiry by purchaser was set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The sale was motivated by the Karta’s extravagant habits, not legal necessity.
- No settlement of sale proceeds in favour of plaintiff or 2nd defendant; collusion with 3rd and 4th defendants.
- Suit for declaration of sale void and for partition and separate possession.
Respondent
- Paid full consideration for valuable consideration to meet marriage expenses of daughter Kashibai.
- Receipts executed by Karta’s wife, daughter and two coparceners.
- Mutation entries and revenue records confirm possession.
- Bona fide purchaser under Section 106 Evidence Act.
Factual Background
In an HUF, the father-Karta sold nine acres of ancestral land in July 1995. The plaintiff-son learned of the sale only in December 1999 and filed suit seeking to declare the deed void and claim partition. The trial court held the sale was for legal necessity (marriage expenses), but the Karnataka High Court reversed. The Supreme Court restored the trial court decree, upholding the sale as valid and the purchaser as bona fide.
Statutory Analysis
- Articles 254 & 241 of Mulla on Hindu Law: outline Karta’s power to alienate for legal necessity and enumerate family necessities (including marriage expenses).
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: reverse burden principle; stranger-purchaser is not required to prove internal distribution of sale proceeds.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on Karta’s power and bona fide purchase under Section 106 Evidence Act affirmed.