Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 207/1997, which confirmed the trial court's decree in O.S. No. 50/1987. The plaintiff-respondent, Smt. Doddamma, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the joint family properties, claiming that she was a coparcener along with her father and brothers. The defendants, including her father Thimmarayappa (since deceased) and brothers, opposed the suit, contending that the plaintiff had no right to partition as she was a daughter and that the properties had been sold to third parties. The trial court decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a half share and declaring that the sale deed executed by the father in favor of the defendants was not binding on the plaintiff. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. In the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the sale of joint family property by the father (Karta) without legal necessity is binding on the daughter who is a coparcener under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court held that the daughter is a coparcener by birth and has equal rights as a son. The sale by the Karta without legal necessity is not binding on the daughter. The burden to prove legal necessity lies on the alienee, and the defendants failed to discharge that burden. The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. The High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Rights - Daughter's Right to Partition - Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The plaintiff, a daughter, sought partition and separate possession of her half share in joint family properties. The defendants, including the father who sold part of the property, contended that the sale was binding. The court held that under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter is a coparcener by birth and has the same rights as a son. The sale by the father as Karta without legal necessity is not binding on the daughter. The burden to prove legal necessity lies on the alienee, which the defendants failed to discharge. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the binding nature of the sale deed executed by the father. The court found that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. No interference was warranted as the question was correctly answered against the appellants. (Paras 1-10) C) Hindu Law - Alienation by Karta - Legal Necessity - Burden of Proof - The defendants claimed that the sale was for legal necessity, but failed to prove the same. The court reiterated that the burden is on the alienee to show that the alienation was for the benefit of the estate or for legal necessity. In the absence of such proof, the alienation is not binding on the other coparceners. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale of joint family property by the father (Karta) without legal necessity is binding on the daughter who is a coparcener under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with costs, confirming the judgments of the lower courts. The plaintiff was held entitled to half share in the joint family properties, and the sale deed executed by the father was declared not binding on her.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Section 8
- Section 14
- Section 30
- coparcenary rights
- daughter's right to partition
- alienation by Karta without legal necessity
- burden of proof on alienee
- substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
