CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court: Karta of Hindu Undivided Family Can Sell Joint Property for Legal Necessity

Court says Karta has wide powers to decide on sales if done for genuine family needs

Marriage expenses, debts, and urgent family requirements can justify sale of ancestral land

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 18, 2025:

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that the Karta — the head of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) — has the legal authority to sell joint family property if the sale is made to meet a genuine legal necessity. The ruling clarifies that such decisions must be judged based on the facts of each case, and that the Karta enjoys wide discretion in determining how to fulfil those needs.

The judgment came from a bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi, which overturned a Karnataka High Court ruling that had invalidated a 1995 sale of agricultural land in Bablad village, Kalaburagi district. The High Court had earlier held that the sale was not for legal necessity and that the purchaser was not a bona fide buyer.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when Dastagirsab, a coparcener (co-owner) in the HUF, challenged the sale of a 9-acre plot by his father, Sharanappa, the Karta of the family. The land was sold in 1995 to the fifth defendant in the case.

The plaintiff alleged that his father was addicted to alcohol and had sold several parcels of land at low prices to fund his habits. He claimed that the 1995 sale deed was executed in collusion with his brother and without any genuine family need.

However, the purchaser argued that the land was sold for valuable consideration to meet expenses related to the marriage of Sharanappa’s daughter, Kashibai. Receipts for the payment were signed by multiple family members, including Kashibai herself.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding that the sale was indeed made for legal necessity — namely, to cover marriage expenses. The court noted that in Indian families, marriage costs can create long-term financial strain, and debts from such events can take years to repay.

High Court’s Reversal

In 2007, the Karnataka High Court reversed the trial court’s decision. It ruled that the purchaser had failed to prove legal necessity, especially since Kashibai’s marriage had taken place in 1991 — four years before the sale. The High Court also doubted the purchaser’s bona fides and concluded that the sale was not justified.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s approach. It stressed that:

Legal necessity must be judged case-by-case — there is no fixed formula.
The onus of proof lies on the purchaser, but this cannot extend to proving facts that are within the special knowledge of the family members (as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).
A purchaser who acts as a man of ordinary prudence and relies on official records showing the Karta’s ownership should not be penalised.

The bench observed that the purchaser had no reason to doubt the Karta’s authority to sell the land. The sale deed was supported by receipts signed by family members, and official land records confirmed the transfer.

Marriage Expenses as Legal Necessity

The court accepted that even though Kashibai’s marriage took place in 1991, the family could still have been repaying debts from the event in 1995. It noted:

“It is common knowledge that families incur heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters, and such debts have a cascading effect on family finances down the years.”

This recognition of extended financial impact is significant, as it broadens the understanding of what can constitute legal necessity.

Delay in Challenging the Sale

The Supreme Court also criticised the plaintiff for waiting five years to challenge the sale. His claim that he was unaware of the transaction because possession had not changed hands was rejected. The court pointed to mutation certificates and land records showing the purchaser’s name, which were public documents.

Key Legal Principles from the Judgment

Wide Discretion of Karta — The Karta can decide how to meet legal necessities, and courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of misuse.
Burden of Proof on Purchaser — While the purchaser must show that the sale was for legal necessity, they are not required to prove facts only the family would know.
Marriage Expenses as Necessity — Costs of marriage, even if incurred years earlier, can justify a sale if debts remain unpaid.
Bona Fide Purchaser Protection — A buyer who acts prudently and relies on official records should be protected from later disputes.
Timely Challenge Required — Delayed legal action can weaken a plaintiff’s case and raise doubts about their intentions.

Impact of the Ruling

This decision will have a far-reaching impact on property disputes within Hindu Undivided Families. It reinforces the Karta’s authority while balancing the rights of other coparceners.

For buyers, the ruling offers reassurance that if they act in good faith and verify ownership records, their purchase is less likely to be overturned years later.

For families, it serves as a reminder that internal disputes should be raised promptly and supported by strong evidence.

Case Details

Case Title: Dastagirsab vs Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors.
Judgment Date: September 16, 2025
Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi
Key Law Cited: Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Outcome: Supreme Court restored trial court’s decision, dismissed plaintiff’s suit, upheld sale as valid.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a strong statement on the practical realities of family finances and the legal powers of a Karta. By recognising that debts from major life events like marriages can linger for years, the court has provided a realistic framework for assessing legal necessity.

It also sends a clear message that bona fide purchasers should not be dragged into prolonged litigation when they have acted with due diligence.