High Court of Judicature at Bombay Dismisses Second Appeal Filed by Purchasers in Partition Suit — Sale Deeds Executed by Karta Without Legal Necessity Not Binding on Coparceners. Alienation of Five Parcels When Only One Was Sufficient to Raise Required Funds Fails the Prudent Owner Test and Is Not for the Benefit of the Estate Under Hindu Law.

Suit for partition and declaration that sale deeds executed by the Karta of a joint Hindu family are not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs (minor son and mother).

The plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 and 2) sought partition of ancestral properties, separate possession of their 2/3rd share, and a declaration that the five sale deeds executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the appellants are not binding on them.

The plaintiffs filed the suit because defendant no. 1 (father/Karta) was mentally weak and was being influenced to sell family properties without legal necessity, and during the pendency of the suit, he executed the sale deeds.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale deeds were valid and the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, allowed the suit, and held that the sale deeds were not for legal necessity or benefit and not binding on the plaintiffs' share.

Whether the sale by defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 was for legal necessity or benefit of the estate ?

Appellants argued they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and the sale was for legal necessity and benefit of the estate because the father invested the proceeds in new lands. Plaintiffs contended the sale was not necessary, only a fraction of the proceeds was used for the new purchase, and the father was manipulated; the sale deeds were executed during pendency of suit and thus subject to lis pendens.

A sale of joint family property by the Karta must be for legal necessity or benefit of the estate to bind the non-consenting coparceners. Legal necessity means a serious and sufficient pressure upon the estate, not actual compulsion. For the benefit of the estate, the transaction must be such as a prudent owner would undertake. Where the sale consideration substantially exceeds the amount required for the claimed purpose and the excess is not explained or justified, the alienation is not for the benefit of the estate and does not bind the other coparceners. The burden lies on the alienee to prove the necessity or benefit.

this was not a case of legal necessity legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion; it means pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. for a transaction to be regarded as one which is of benefit to the family, it need not necessarily be only of a defensive character. if the transaction was such as a prudent owner would like to effect, it will be considered to be for the benefit of the estate. the sale of one parcel of land by Respondent No.3 to one of the appellants was sufficient to purchase property at Kasarkheda and there was no necessity to sell properties to other four appellants.

The original suit (R.C.S. No. 229 of 1980) was filed on 6.5.1980 before the II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded, by the plaintiffs seeking partition and injunction. During pendency, on 20.5.1980, defendant No.1 executed five sale deeds in favour of the appellants. The plaintiffs amended the suit to challenge the sale deeds. The trial court dismissed the suit on 10.9.1984. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 251 of 1984 before the III Additional District Judge, Nanded, which was allowed on 12.4.1990, reversing the trial court's decision and granting partition and declaration. The defendants (appellants herein) filed the present Second Appeal No. 204 of 1990 before the High Court, which was admitted on 28.6.1990. After hearing arguments, the High Court reserved judgment on 7.4.2010 and pronounced it on 9.4.2010, dismissing the second appeal.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100