Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s decree of partition. It upheld the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the coparcener’s suit challenging the 1995 sale deed of joint family land. The Court held that the sale executed by the Karta (father) in favour of the purchaser was for legal necessity, namely, marriage expenses of the Karta’s daughter, and that the purchaser had acted as a bona fide buyer. It emphasized: “The onus on a stranger-purchaser cannot run counter to Section 106 of the Evidence Act by forcing him to prove facts within the special knowledge of the coparceners.”
Facts
The case concerned land measuring 9 acres 1 gunta in Bablad village, Gulbarga, owned by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Karta (father) had four sons, including the plaintiff. He was accused of being addicted to alcohol and having squandered HUF properties for inadequate consideration. He promised not to sell the suit land but later executed a sale deed in 1995 in favour of the purchaser (5th defendant), allegedly without family necessity or consideration.
The plaintiff discovered the sale in 1999 and sued for declaration that the deed was void and for partition of his share. The purchaser defended, claiming the land was sold for valuable consideration to meet marriage expenses of the Karta’s daughter, supported by receipts signed by family members.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, upholding the sale as one made for legal necessity. On appeal, the High Court reversed the decision, holding that the purchaser failed to prove legal necessity and that the sale for marriage was improbable since the daughter had already married earlier.
The matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal by the purchaser .
Issues
- Whether the Karta validly sold the HUF land in 1995 for legal necessity.
- Whether the purchaser discharged his burden of proving legal necessity.
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s findings despite evidence showing bona fide purchase.
- What is the scope of a coparcener’s right to challenge alienations by the Karta.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The purchaser argued that the sale was executed for legal necessity, namely, to cover the expenses of the Karta’s daughter’s marriage, and this was corroborated by receipts signed by two coparceners, the Karta’s wife, and the daughter herself. He contended that possession and mutation entries had been transferred to him, proving the sale’s genuineness.
It was submitted that as a bona fide purchaser, he had no obligation to prove how the sale proceeds were distributed among the coparceners. Relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of such knowledge lay with the family, not with him.
He further argued that the High Court overlooked the plaintiff’s admission during cross-examination that his father had told him the property was sold for family needs .
Respondent’s Arguments
The plaintiff (coparcener) argued that the Karta had a history of dissipating HUF assets due to his bad habits. He alleged the 1995 sale was a continuation of such misconduct and was not tied to any genuine necessity.
He contended that since the daughter’s marriage occurred in 1991, several years before the sale, the plea of “marriage expenses” was fabricated. He emphasized that no deposits had been made in his favour despite promises, and that the Karta acted in collusion with some sons and the purchaser.
The plaintiff also claimed ignorance of the transaction until 1999, stating possession was not handed over immediately .
Analysis of the Law
The Court revisited the settled principles of Hindu law regarding the Karta’s power of alienation. The Karta has wide discretion to alienate joint family property if such sale is for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. Coparceners may challenge such alienation, but the burden lies on the purchaser to establish that necessity existed or that he made reasonable enquiries.
The Court emphasized that “legal necessity” is not confined to immediate expenses; family obligations like marriage debts can justify alienation years after the event. It also underscored the doctrine that purchasers cannot be asked to prove facts solely within the family’s knowledge.
The High Court, the Court noted, erred by narrowly construing the timing of the daughter’s marriage and ignoring supporting receipts and admissions .
Precedent Analysis
- Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath (2021) 19 SCC 263: Reaffirmed the Karta’s wide discretion to alienate HUF property for legal necessity, binding even on minors and widows. Applied to support the purchaser’s case.
- Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018) 14 SCC 445: Quoted Mulla’s Hindu Law, explaining that marriage expenses are recognized legal necessity. Cited to show debts from past marriages qualify.
- Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722: Held burden lies on purchaser to prove legal necessity, but once reasonable nexus is shown, the sale stands binding. Relied upon here.
The Court also referred to classical Hindu law principles summarized in Mulla, highlighting that marriage expenses and maintenance are core family necessities .
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench found the Trial Court was correct in holding that the sale was supported by legal necessity. The plaintiff’s own admission that his father had told him the sale was for family needs corroborated the purchaser’s claim.
The Court reasoned that expenses of a daughter’s marriage, though incurred earlier, can create debts with long-term impact. Thus, the High Court erred in discarding this ground solely because the marriage predated the sale.
It emphasized that receipts signed by coparceners and family members proved the legitimacy of the transaction. Further, the purchaser had acted prudently in relying on land records and mutation entries in the Karta’s name.
The Court criticized the plaintiff’s belated challenge after five years and his failure to contest earlier alienations, holding his conduct undermined his claim.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decree of partition and restored the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit. It held the purchaser was a bona fide buyer for value and the sale by the Karta was for legal necessity. The appeal was allowed.
Implications
This ruling strengthens the legal framework around alienations by the Karta of HUF property. It clarifies that:
- Marriage expenses, even if incurred years earlier, constitute legal necessity.
- Purchasers acting in good faith are protected from excessive burdens of proof.
- Coparceners cannot belatedly challenge alienations without clear evidence of mala fide.
The decision reassures bona fide purchasers dealing with HUF property and underscores judicial respect for the Karta’s discretion when necessity is shown.
FAQs
1. Can a Karta sell HUF property without consent of coparceners?
Yes, if the sale is for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. Such sales bind all coparceners, including minors.
2. Does marriage expense qualify as legal necessity?
Yes. Marriage expenses of coparceners or their daughters are recognized as legal necessity, even if debts are repaid years later.
3. What protection does a bona fide purchaser have?
If the purchaser shows reasonable nexus between sale and necessity, courts uphold the sale. He cannot be forced to prove facts within the family’s exclusive knowledge.
