Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 20.4.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1996, which confirmed the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 1981 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malkapur. The plaintiffs, who are the sons of Rambhau Gujar, filed the suit for declaration that a sale deed dated 7.5.1971 executed by their father in favor of the 1st defendant, Shamrao Gopal Petkar, in respect of suit field bearing Survey No. 14-15/2 admeasuring 15 acres 36 gunthas, was not binding on them and for consequential possession. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was joint family property and that the sale was without legal necessity or benefit to the family. The defendants contended that the sale was for legal necessity, namely, to discharge antecedent debts and for family expenses. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale was for legal necessity. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the burden of proof of legal necessity. The High Court held that the alienee (1st defendant) failed to discharge the burden of proving legal necessity. The recitals in the sale deed were not sufficient; no independent evidence was led to show that the sale was for the benefit of the family or to discharge any pre-existing debt. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the sale deed was not binding on them and directing the defendants to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Alienation by Karta - Legal Necessity - The karta of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate joint family property only for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The burden of proving such necessity lies on the alienee. In the present case, the sale deed dated 7.5.1971 executed by the father (karta) in favor of the 1st defendant was challenged by the sons. The courts below had dismissed the suit, but the High Court held that the alienee failed to discharge the burden of proving legal necessity. The sale was therefore not binding on the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of Proof - Legal Necessity - The burden of proving legal necessity for an alienation by the karta of a joint family is on the alienee. Mere recitals in the sale deed are insufficient; independent evidence of necessity must be adduced. The High Court found that the 1st defendant did not lead any evidence to show that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family. Hence, the sale was set aside. (Paras 5-10) C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 60 - Suit for Possession - The suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was within limitation as the plaintiffs were minors at the time of the sale and the suit was filed within 12 years of attaining majority. The High Court did not disturb the finding on limitation. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale transaction dated 7.5.1971 executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favor of the 1st defendant in respect of joint family property is binding on the plaintiffs (sons) in the absence of proof of legal necessity or benefit to the family.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The sale deed dated 7.5.1971 was declared not binding on the plaintiffs, and the defendants were directed to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Legal necessity
- Joint family property
- Karta's power to alienate
- Hindu law
- Pre-existing debt
- Antecedent debt
- Binding nature of sale
