High Court of Karnataka Allows Daughters' Partition Suit Against Alienation by Father — Sale Deed Set Aside as Not Binding on Coparcenary. Daughters are coparceners by birth under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and alienation without legal necessity is invalid.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, three daughters of Mallikarjuna Balikai, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of suit properties and for a declaration that a sale deed dated September 9, 2005, executed by their father in favor of respondent No.4 (Shivappa) was not binding on them. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the daughters were not coparceners at the time of the sale. On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka reversed the decision, relying on the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which confers coparcenary rights on daughters by birth. The court noted that the sale was made without legal necessity and that the burden of proof on the alienee was not discharged. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the sale deed was declared not binding on the plaintiffs, and a preliminary decree for partition was passed.

Headnote

A) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Rights - Daughters as Coparceners - Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The court held that daughters are coparceners by birth under the amended Section 6, and their rights cannot be defeated by an alienation made by the father without legal necessity. The sale deed dated 09.09.2005 was set aside as not binding on the plaintiffs (Paras 1-10).

B) Property Law - Alienation by Karta - Legal Necessity - Burden of Proof - The court held that the burden to prove legal necessity for alienation of joint family property lies on the alienee. The respondent failed to discharge this burden, and thus the sale was invalid (Paras 5-8).

C) Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Declaration of Title - The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's dismissal, and decreed the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share (Paras 9-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the sale deed executed by the father (Karta) without legal necessity is binding on the daughters who are coparceners by virtue of the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree dated 06.08.2012 in O.S.No.119/2008 set aside. Suit decreed. Sale deed dated 09.09.2005 executed by Mallikarjuna Balikai in favor of Shivappa is declared not binding on the plaintiffs. Preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs' share passed.

Law Points

  • Hindu Succession Act
  • 1956
  • Section 6
  • coparcenary rights
  • daughters' rights
  • alienation by Karta
  • legal necessity
  • burden of proof
  • partition
  • declaration of title
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (07) 21

R.F.A. No.4212/2013

2016-07-19

H.G. Ramesh, Rathnakala

Sri Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath (for appellants), Sri R.B. Contractor (for respondent No.4)

Smt. Shakuntala, Smt. Manjula, Smt. Rajeshwari

Basavaraj (deceased), Parawwa, Basavanneppa, Shivappa

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

First appeal against dismissal of suit for partition and declaration that sale deed is not binding.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought partition and separate possession of suit properties and declaration that sale deed dated 09.09.2005 is not binding on them.

Filing Reason

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that daughters were not coparceners at the time of sale.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed O.S.No.119/2008 on 06.08.2012.

Issues

Whether the sale deed executed by the father without legal necessity is binding on the daughters who are coparceners by virtue of the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that they are coparceners by birth under amended Section 6 and the sale was without legal necessity. Respondent No.4 contended that the sale was for legal necessity and the daughters had no right at the time of sale.

Ratio Decidendi

Daughters are coparceners by birth under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and an alienation of joint family property by the Karta without legal necessity is not binding on them. The burden to prove legal necessity lies on the alienee, and failure to discharge it renders the sale invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

This first appeal is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Court of First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, dismissing their suit in O.S.No.119/2008 filed for partition of suit properties and for a declaration that the sale deed dated September 9, 2005 executed by their father in favor of respondent No.4 is not binding on them. The court held that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs as the father had no authority to alienate the property without legal necessity.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.119/2008 for partition and declaration. The trial court dismissed the suit on 06.08.2012. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No.4212/2013, which was allowed on 19.07.2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 96
  • Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Confirms Removal of Chartered Accountant for Professional Misconduct in Audit of Great Western Industries Ltd. — Council's Recommendation for One-Year Removal Upheld Under Section 21(5) of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Daughters' Partition Suit Against Alienation by Father — Sale Deed Set Aside as Not Binding on Coparcenary. Daughters are coparceners by birth under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and alienation without lega...