Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920: Dispute between plaintiff-son, father and the defendants-purchaser of the suit land from father – Suit for declaration that the sale deed in relation to the suit land was not binding on the plaintiff and sale in question was void and does not convey any right, title and interest in favour of purchasers – Held: The sale deeds reflected the factum of family debts – The plaintiff ’s father, being a Karta of the family, had every right to sell the suit land belonging to family to discharge the debt liability and spend some money to make improvement in agriculture land for the maintenance of his family – Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood proved, then, no 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 coparceners along with his father – 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 – Suit liable to be dismissed – Hindu law – Right of Karta to sell family property.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It came in evidence that firstly, the family owed two debts and secondly, the family also needed money to make improvement in agriculture land belonging to the family. The plaintiff’s father, being a Karta of the family, had every right to sell the suit land belonging to family to discharge the debt liability and spend some money to make improvement in agriculture land for the maintenance of his family. These facts were also mentioned & ORS.
in the sale deed. A case of legal necessity for sale of ancestral property by the Karta was, therefore, made out on facts. In other words, the defendants were able to discharge the burden that lay on them to prove the existence of legal necessity for sale of suit land to defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendants thus satisfied the test laid down in Hindu law as explained by Mulla in Article 254
(2) read with Article 241 (a) and (g). The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is just and proper. [Paras 26, 27, 29] [993-C-F; 994-A]
Charan Singh v. Gehl Singh, 1974 PLR 125; Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1654: [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 212 – referred to
Hindu law by Mulla (Article 254) – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.