Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a suit for partition and separate possession filed by four plaintiffs, who were daughters of late Dajiba, against the defendant Darubai, who was the wife of Dajiba and step-mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed 4/5th share in the property left by Dajiba, which included agricultural land and two houses. The defendant contended that she had sold a part of the suit property as karta to one Dattatraya for legal necessity, specifically for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, rejecting the defendant's claim of legal necessity. However, the first appellate court reversed the trial court's findings and held that the sale was for legal necessity and thus valid. The High Court, in second appeal, overturned the first appellate court's decision and restored the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court, after granting leave, examined the evidence and found that the defendant had indeed sold the property for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs, which constitutes legal necessity. The Court noted that the burden of proving legal necessity was on the defendant, but she had discharged it by adducing evidence, including the sale deed and testimony. The plaintiffs failed to rebut this evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the first appellate court's decision, thereby upholding the sale and modifying the partition decree accordingly.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Karta's Power of Alienation - Legal Necessity - The karta of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, including marriage expenses of a daughter. The burden of proving legal necessity lies on the alienee, but once established, the alienation is binding on all coparceners. (Paras 4-6)
B) Partition - Suit for Partition - Sale of Property - In a suit for partition, if the karta has sold a part of the joint family property for legal necessity, the sale is valid and the property sold cannot be partitioned. The court must exclude such property from the partition decree. (Paras 4-6)
C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Legal Necessity - The defendant, as karta, proved legal necessity by showing that the sale proceeds were used for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to rebut this evidence. Hence, the sale was upheld. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale of joint family property by the defendant (step-mother) as karta for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs (daughters) was for legal necessity and binding on the other coparceners.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the first appellate court. The sale of the property to Dattatraya was upheld as being for legal necessity.
Law Points
- Legal necessity
- Karta's power to alienate
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Burden of proof on alienee
- Marriage expenses as legal necessity
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. ________ of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13232 of 2022)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment in second appeal arising from a suit for partition and separate possession.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the High Court judgment and restore the first appellate court's decision upholding the sale of property for legal necessity.
Filing Reason
The High Court overturned the first appellate court's finding that the sale of joint family property by the defendant as karta was for legal necessity.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs on 20th October 1995. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on 9th March 1999, upholding the sale. The High Court, in Second Appeal No. 1648 of 2005, reversed the first appellate court's judgment on 31st March 2022.
Issues
Whether the sale of joint family property by the defendant as karta was for legal necessity.
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact by the first appellate court.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the sale was for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs, which constitutes legal necessity, and the first appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence.
The respondents argued that the sale was not for legal necessity and the High Court rightly set aside the first appellate court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A karta of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, including marriage expenses of a daughter. The burden of proving legal necessity is on the alienee, but once established, the alienation is binding on all coparceners. In this case, the defendant proved legal necessity by showing that the sale proceeds were used for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs.
Judgment Excerpts
The defendant’s reasoning that she had agreed to sell a part of the suit property, as ‘karta’ to one Dattatraya, out of legal necessity for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs, was rejected.
The First Appellate Court reversed the findings and held the legal necessity ground to be established along with the defendant’s right to manage the property and so, the judgment of the Civil Court was interfered with inasmuch as the sale to Dattatraya is concerned, only.
Procedural History
The suit for partition (Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 1972) was decreed by the trial court on 20th October 1995. The first appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1995) was allowed by the II Additional District Judge, Nanded on 9th March 1999, reversing the trial court's judgment. The second appeal (Second Appeal No. 1648 of 2005) was allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench on 31st March 2022, restoring the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeal on [date not mentioned].
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
