Hindu Law – Sale of the suit land (belonging to the HUF) by 1st defendant-Karta to 5th defendant, if was for legal necessity i.e. the marriage of daughter ‘K’ – Suit filed by plaintiffcoparcener (one of the sons of 1st defendant) assailing the sale transaction, was dismissed by Trial Court holding that the suit land was sold to meet the expenses of the marriage of ‘K’, that is, due to legal necessity – Order reversed by High Court holding that the sale of the suit land for ‘K’s’ marriage was improbable as the marriage had already taken place prior to the sale in question – Interference with:
Held: 1.1 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. [Para 11]
1.2 It is true K’s marriage had taken place in 1991, couple of years prior to the 1st defendant 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 – Expenses borne by the coparceners in respect of K’s marriage created financial stress on the family leading to the sale of the suit land. [Para 15]
1.3 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 ‘K’. [Para 15]
1.4 High Court erroneously found that 5th defendant’s case for sale on the ground of legal necessity for marriage was not proved – 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. [Paras 15, 19]
1.5 Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court, set aside – Judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit, upheld. [Para 19] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Suit land belonging to the HUF was sold by 1st defendant-Karta to 5th defendant-purchaser for legal necessity of the marriage of daughter ‘K’ – High Court held that the sale in favour of 5th defendant was not for legal necessity and he was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration as he had not made enquiries regarding the source of title or the manner in which the sale consideration was distributed among coparceners, hence was not a bona fide purchaser:
Held: 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/purchaser – The 5th defendant, through deft cross examination of the plaintiff and other evidence, established a clear nexus between the sale transaction and the expenses undertaken for K’s marriage and thus, discharged the onus – In these circumstances, his case cannot be disbelieved on the ground that all the coparceners had not received the sale consideration – This fact 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 s.106 and saddle him with the liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of the coparceners of the HUF – Moreover, on facts, 5th defendant could not have doubted the right of the 1st defendant to effect the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary prudence to purchase the suit land – High Court erroneously found that 5th defendant’s case for sale on the ground of legal necessity for marriage was not proved. [Paras 16, 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.