Marriage debts and cascading financial effect constitute legal necessity justifying Karta's alienation. Sale of HUF property to repay marriage debts valid even when marriage preceded sale by years.
["Daughter marriage expenses constitute legal necessity","Debts from marriage have cascading effect on finances","Sale to repay marriage debts valid even if marriage preceded sale","Karta wide discretion in determining legal necessity","Trial Court decree dismissing partition suit restored"]
[Cites 11 , Cited by 0 ]
Supreme Court of India
Dastagirsab vs Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa(D)By Lrs on 16 September, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
2025 INSC 1120 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5340/2017
Dastagirsab Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sharanappa
@ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. The appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated
12.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
reversing the judgment passed by the Principal Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gulbarga1 in OS No. 93 of 2000 and
decreeing partition and separate possession of half share
of the suit land2 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent no.73
herein.
2. For clarity, parties are referred as per their status before
Trial Court. The plaintiff’s case is as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.09.16
16:13:25 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’.
2
Land measuring 9 acres 1 gunta in Survey No. 49/2, Bablad Village, Taluk and District Gulbarga, Karnataka.
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’.
Page 1 of 13
(i) 1st defendant-Sharanappa4 is the plaintiff’s father. He
had four sons, namely, Kashiraya-plaintiff, Bhimaraya-
2nd defendant5, Mahalingappa-3rd defendant6 and
Ravichandra-4th defendant7. They constituted a Hindu
Undivided Family8 and 1st defendant was the Karta of
the HUF. The suit land belonged to the HUF. 1st
defendant was addicted to alcohol and indulged in bad
habits. To meet his wayward lifestyle he had sold
various parcels of land belonging to the HUF for meagre
consideration. When the plaintiff objected, 1st defendant
promised he would make fixed deposits in the name of
all his sons and will not sell the suit land. He also stated
he would settle larger sums in favour of 3rd and 4th
defendants, and the suit land shall be divided amongst
the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. 1st defendant did not
deposit any money in the name of plaintiff and 2nd
defendant but deposited large amounts in favour of 3rd
and 4th defendants, and colluded with the latter to
execute a sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘1st defendant’.
5
Hereinafter referred to as ‘2nd defendant’.
6
Hereinafter referred to as ‘3rd defendant’.
7
Hereinafter referred to as ‘4th defendant’.
8
‘HUF’ for short.
Page 2 of 13
of the 5th defendant-appellant9 on 26.07.1995 without
consideration or family necessity. The plaintiff was
unaware of the sale transaction till December, 1999 as
the possession had not been handed over to the 5th
defendant. Upon enquires in December, 1999 the
plaintiff came to know of the said sale and was assured
by defendant nos.1 and 3 to 5 that the deed shall be
cancelled.
(ii) When the defendants failed to cancel the deed and tried
to alienate the suit land to other parties, he filed the suit
seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 26.07.1995
was null and void. He also prayed for partition and
separate possession of the suit land.
3. During the pendency of the suit, 1st defendant-Karta
died. 5th defendant contested the suit by filing written
statement wherein he inter alia contended 1st defendant
had agreed to sell the suit land for a valuable
consideration. On 18.06.1994, he received Rs.1,00,000/-
out of the said consideration and executed an agreement
for sale. The agreement for sale as well as the money
9
Hereinafter referred to as ‘5th defendant’.
Page 3 of 13
receipt was signed by his wife-Siddamma, daughter-
Kashibai and 4th defendant-coparcener. On 26.07.1995,
1st defendant obtained the remaining consideration and
executed a document which was signed by defendant
nos. 3 and 4. Upon payment of the entire consideration,
the sale deed was executed showing the sale
consideration as Rs.72,000/- for court fee purposes. The
sale had been executed by 1st defendant for legal
necessity owing to the marriage of his daughter Kashibai.
After the sale he was put in possession of the suit land
as evident from mutation certificate, land revenue
records, etc. The suit was a collusive one and is not
maintainable as all the properties of the HUF and other
parties had not been joined in the suit.
4. The Trial Court framed eleven issues including the
following:
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to share in the
suit land? If so, to what extent?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in joint possession of the
suit property?
………….
6. Whether defendant no.5 proves that he is a bona fide purchaser
of the suit land for valuable consideration?”
Page 4 of 13
5. Plaintiff examined himself and two witnesses to prove his
case that the suit land was not sold for legal necessity while
5th defendant examined himself and three witnesses to
probabilise the contrary.
6. The Trial Court held the suit land belonged to the HUF and
1st defendant-Karta had sold various parcels of land of the
HUF to meet financial needs of the family. On 26.07.1995,
the suit land was sold to meet the expenses of the marriage
of Kashibai, that is, due to legal necessity. Holding as such,
the suit was dismissed.
7. The High Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and
allowed the suit. The High Court held the appellant had not
specifically denied the plaintiff’s case and had not made due
enquiry as to how the 1st defendant utilized the sale
consideration in question. As such, the High Court held 5th
defendant has not adduced any evidence in respect of legal
necessity and the plea that the sale was for Kashibai’s
marriage is not well founded as she had been married
earlier.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Page 5 of 13
9. From an analysis of the materials on record, the moot issue
which falls for consideration is:
Whether the suit land was sold to 5th defendant for
legal necessity i.e. the marriage of daughter
Kashibai?
10. Evidence on record unequivocally shows the 1st defendant
was the Karta of an HUF of which his sons i.e., plaintiff,
defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 were coparceners. The HUF had
owned various immovable properties. Some of these
properties had been sold by 1st defendant-Karta to various
alienees earlier. Plaintiff contended such sales were to meet
the extravagant and bad habits of 1st defendant and not for
legal necessity. The suit land also belonged to the HUF and
had been sold by 1st defendant-Karta.
11. 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.
Whether legal necessity existed justifying the sale would
depend on facts of each case. In Beereddy Dasaratharami
Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr.10 , this Court succinctly
elucidated:
10
Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263.
Page 6 of 13
“6. Right of the Karta to execute agreement to sell or sale
deed of a joint Hindu family property is settled and is beyond
cavil vide several judgments of this Court including Sri
Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54] , wherein it
has been held that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting
through its Karta or adult member of the family in
management of the joint Hindu family property. 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. Where a Karta has
alienated a joint Hindu family property for value either for
legal necessity or benefit of the estate it would bind the
interest of all undivided members of the family even when
they are minors or widows. There are no specific grounds
that establish the existence of legal necessity and the
existence of legal necessity depends upon facts of each case.
The Karta enjoys wide discretion in his decision over
existence of legal necessity and as to in what way such
necessity can be fulfilled. The exercise of powers given the
rights of the Karta on fulfilling the requirement of legal
necessity or betterment of the estate is valid and binding on
other coparceners.
7. Elucidating the position in Hindu law, this Court in Kehar
Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018) 14 SCC 445 has referred
to Mulla on Hindu Law and the concept of legal necessity to
observe thus: (SCC pp. 449-51, paras 20-21 & 26)
“20. Mulla in his classic work Hindu Law while dealing with
the right of a father to alienate any ancestral property said in
Article 254 , which reads as under:
‘Article 254
254. Alienation by father.—A Hindu father as such has
special powers of alienating coparcenary property, which no
other coparcener has. In the exercise of these powers he may:
(1) make a gift of ancestral movable property to the extent
mentioned in Article 223 , and even of ancestral immovable
property to the extent mentioned in Article 224;
(2) sell or mortgage ancestral property, whether movable or
immovable, including the interest of his sons, grandsons and
great-grandsons therein, for the payment of his own debt,
provided the debt was an antecedent debt, and was not
incurred for immoral or illegal purposes ( Article 294 ).’
Page 7 of 13
21. What is legal necessity was also succinctly said by Mulla
in Article 241 , which reads as under:
‘Article 241
241. What is legal necessity.—The following have been held
to be family necessities within the meaning of Article 240:
(a) payment of government revenue and of debts which are
payable out of the family property;
(b) maintenance of coparceners and of the members of their
families;
(c) marriage expenses of male coparceners, and of the
daughters of coparceners;
(d) performance of the necessary funeral or family
ceremonies;
(e) costs of necessary litigation in recovering or preserving the
estate;
(f) costs of defending the head of the joint family or any other
member against a serious criminal charge;
(g) payment of debts incurred for family business or other
necessary purpose. In the case of a manager other than a
father, it is not enough to show merely that the debt is a pre-
existing debt;
The above are not the only indices for concluding as to
whether the alienation was indeed for legal necessity, nor
can the enumeration of criterion for establishing legal
necessity be copious or even predictable. It must therefore
depend on the facts of each case. When, therefore, property
is sold in order to fulfil tax obligations incurred by a family
business, such alienation can be classified as constituting
legal necessity.’
(See Hindu Law by Mulla “22nd Edition”.)
***
26. Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood
proved, then, in our view, no co-coparcener (son) has a right
to challenge the sale made by the karta of his family. The
plaintiff being a son was one of the co-coparceners along with
his father Pritam Singh. He had no right to challenge such
sale in the light of findings of legal necessity being recorded
against him. It was more so when the plaintiff failed to prove
by any evidence that there was no legal necessity for sale of
the suit land or that the evidence adduced by the defendants
to prove the factum of existence of legal necessity was either
insufficient or irrelevant or no evidence at all.”
Page 8 of 13
12. Plaintiff-coparcener has assailed the sale transaction
undertaken by 1st defendant-Karta on the ground it was not
made for legal necessity but to meet his expensive and
wasteful habits. Evidence has come on record 1st
defendant-Karta had previously sold various properties of
the HUF. Though it is the plaintiff’s case that such sales
were not for legal necessities, he has not challenged any of
these transactions. To justify his present claim, the plaintiff
asserts the 1st defendant assured him money derived from
such sales would be settled in favour of the sons including
the plaintiff and that no other properties would be sold. It
is further the plaintiff’s case, no money was settled in his
favour or that of the 2nd defendant but substantial sums
were settled in favour of 3rd and 4th defendant. Though the
plaintiff alleges 1st defendant acted in a biased and unfair
manner, admittedly the plaintiff has not taken any steps
for recovery of such outstanding dues earlier or even in the
present suit.
13. In view of such conduct, the Trial Court rightly inferred the
earlier sale transactions of HUF properties were for financial
Page 9 of 13
needs and the plea that the previous HUF assets were
disposed of to meet the Karta’s extravagant habits was an
afterthought.
14. With regard to the sale of the suit land to 5th defendant, the
Trial Court noted that during cross-examination the plaintiff
admitted his father had informed him that the property had
been sold to meet family needs. High Court completely
glossed over this fact and reversed the finding on a specious
logic that the sale of the suit land for Kashibai’s marriage was
improbable as the marriage had already taken place prior to
the sale in question.
15. 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. Apart from the 1st defendant-
Karta disclosing to the plaintiff such sale was to meet family
needs, the money receipts for the sale consideration were
signed by two of the coparceners, as well as the 1st
defendant’s wife and daughter Kashibai, whose marriage
Page 10 of 13
expenses are stated to be the reason for the sale. These
circumstances demonstrate expenses borne by the
coparceners in respect of Kashibai’s marriage created
financial stress on the family leading to the sale of the suit
land. High Court overlooked these facts and came to an
erroneous finding that 5th defendant’s case for sale on the
ground of legal necessity for marriage is not proved.
16. High Court held as 5th defendant had not made enquiries
regarding the source of title or the manner in which the sale
consideration was distributed among coparceners, hence he
cannot be held to be a bona fide purchaser. We are conscious
that the onus to prove that a sale made by the Karta on behalf
of other coparceners of HUF for legal necessity lies on the
alienee/purchaser11. 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. In these circumstances, his
case cannot be disbelieved on the score that all the
coparceners had not received the sale consideration. This fact
11
See Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722 (paras 10-11).
Page 11 of 13
is in the special knowledge of the plaintiff and other
coparceners. 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.
17. The suit land stood in the name of 1st defendant-Karta.
Relying on such land entries, 5th defendant purchased the
land for valuable consideration. The money receipts were
executed by some of the coparceners namely, defendant nos.
3 and 4 as well as Kashibai. Given these facts, we are inclined
to hold 5th defendant-purchaser could not have doubted the
right of the 1st defendant-karta to effect the sale for legal
necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary prudence to
purchase the suit land.
18. On the contrary, conduct of the plaintiff in belatedly
challenging the sale transaction after five years in the year
2000 raises grave doubt regarding his bona fides. Plaintiff
sought to justify the delay by contending he was unaware of
the sale since possession of the suit land was not parted with.
Such explanation is wholly facetious as ample evidence in the
Page 12 of 13
form of mutation certificate, land record entries standing in
the name of 5th defendant have come on record establishing
his continued possession of the suit land. High Court not only
ignored these facts improbabilising the plaintiff’s case but
made up a third case that the plaintiff was working for gain
elsewhere and could not have been aware of the sale
transaction. No such case was either pleaded or probabilised
by the plaintiff during trial.
19. 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. The appeal is allowed.
………………………………………., J
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
………………………………………, J
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
Page 13 of 13