Supreme Court reaffirms that the Karta of a HUF has wide discretion to sell joint family property for legal necessities, protecting property rights and ensuring bona fide transactions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on September 16, 2025, reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) enjoys wide discretion to sell joint family property to meet legal necessities, and such decisions must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard a challenge by a coparcener against the sale of a parcel of land by the Karta, which had earlier been dismissed by the High Court. The apex court set aside the High Court’s dismissal and confirmed the validity of the transaction.
The court observed:
“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/purchaser.”
At the same time, the bench cautioned that this burden of proof cannot contravene Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which prevents forcing a purchaser to establish facts within the special knowledge of the coparceners themselves.
ALSO READ: Transgender Reservation in PG Medical Seats | Supreme Court to Hear Plea Next Week
The Supreme Court overturned the Karnataka High Court’s January 12, 2007 judgment, which had ruled that the sale in favor of the fifth defendant was not for legal necessity and that the purchaser was not a bona fide buyer for valuable consideration. The apex court noted that the suit land stood in the name of the first defendant, Karta, and money receipts had been executed by the coparceners, including other defendants.
The bench ruled:
“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.”
The court also flagged the plaintiff’s delay in challenging the transaction five years later, in 2000, which cast doubt on his bona fides. His explanation that he was unaware of the sale as possession was not handed over was rejected. The bench stated:
“Such explanation is wholly facetious as ample evidence in the 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.”
The plaintiff had argued that his father, the Karta Sharanappa, was addicted to alcohol and had sold various parcels of land for meager amounts, allegedly in collusion with his brother. He sought cancellation of the 1995 sale deed along with partition and possession.
However, the trial court found that the sale was executed to meet family expenses, specifically for Kashibai’s marriage, which constituted a legal necessity. The High Court had overturned this finding, but the Supreme Court restored it, observing:
“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.”
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had ignored crucial facts, misapplied the law, and wrongly doubted the purchaser’s bona fides. By upholding the trial court’s decision, the apex court dismissed the suit and reinforced the Karta’s right to act in the interest of family welfare when meeting legal necessities.
Case Title:
Dastagirsab VERSUS Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5340/2017
Read Judgment:
READ MORE REPORTS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS