Holding

A sale by the Karta of HUF property for the legal necessity of a daughter’s marriage is valid, and the purchaser, having discharged the statutory onus, is a bona fide purchaser, rendering the suit untenable.

Summary

The plaintiff, a coparcener of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), challenged the sale of a suit land by the Karta (father) to the fifth defendant, alleging the sale was not for legal necessity but to meet the Karta's personal habits. The central issue was whether the sale was made to meet the legal necessity of the Karta's daughter Kashibai's marriage, despite the marriage having occurred earlier. The trial court held the sale was for legal necessity and dismissed the suit; the High Court reversed this, finding no legal necessity and questioning the purchaser's bona‑fide status. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's view, emphasizing the Karta's wide discretion, the purchaser's discharge of the onus under Evidence Act s.106, and the financial stress caused by the daughter's marriage expenses. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the suit dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the sale of the HUF suit land by the Karta was made for legal necessity, specifically the marriage of his daughter Kashibai
Whether the purchaser (5th defendant) qualifies as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration
Whether the onus of proving legal necessity lies on the purchaser under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872

Legislation cited

Evidence Act, 1872s. 106

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the suit land was sold to 5th defendant by 1st defendant- Karta for legal necessity i.e. the marriage of his daughter ‘K’. Headnotes† Hindu Law – Sale of the suit land (belonging to the HUF) by 1st defendant-Karta to 5th defendant, if i.e. the marriage of daughter ‘K’ – Suit filed by plaintiff- coparcener (one of the sons of 1st defendant) assailing the sale transaction, was dismissed by Trial Court holding that the suit land was sold to meet the expenses of the marriage of ‘K’, that is,

Subjects

Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)KartaCoparceners of the HUFLegal necessityMarriage of daughterSuit land belonged to HUFJoint family propertyRight of Karta to sell joint family propertyBona fide purchaserValuable considerationOnus on alienee/purchaserFacts within special knowledge of coparceners of the HUFMarriage took place prior to the sale in questionFinancial stress on familyOnus of proof on the stranger-purchaserPrinciple of reverse burdenSale on the ground of legal necessity for marriage provedSuit land in the name of Karta

Judgment

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1053 : 2025 INSC 1120

Dastagirsab
v.
Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D)
by LRs. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5340 of 2017)
16 September 2025
[Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the suit land was sold to 5th defendant by 1st defendant-
Karta for legal necessity i.e. the marriage of his daughter ‘K’.

Headnotes†
Hindu Law – Sale of the suit land (belonging to the HUF) by
1st defendant-Karta to 5th defendant, if was for legal necessity
i.e. the marriage of daughter ‘K’ – Suit filed by plaintiff-
coparcener (one of the sons of 1st defendant) assailing the
sale transaction, was dismissed by Trial Court holding that
the suit land was sold to meet the expenses of the marriage
of ‘K’, that is, due to legal necessity – Order reversed by High
Court holding that the sale of the suit land for ‘K’s’ marriage
was improbable as the marriage had already taken place prior
to the sale in question – Interference with:
Held: 1.1 Right of a Karta to sell joint family property is well
settled – Karta enjoys wide discretion with regard to existence of
legal necessity and in what way such necessity can be fulfilled –
Whether legal necessity existed justifying the sale would depend
on facts of each case. [Para 11]
1.2 It is true K’s marriage had taken place in 1991, couple of years
prior to the 1st defendant entering into sale of the suit property
for valuable consideration – It is common knowledge families
incur heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters and
such debts have a cascading effect on family finances down the
years – Expenses borne by the coparceners in respect of K’s
marriage created financial stress on the family leading to the sale
of the suit land. [Para 15]

* Author
1054 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1.3 Apart from the 1st defendant-Karta disclosing to the plaintiff
such sale was to meet family needs, the money receipts for the
sale consideration were signed by two of the coparceners, as well
as the 1st defendant’s wife and daughter ‘K’. [Para 15]
1.4 High Court erroneously found that 5th defendant’s case for sale
on the ground of legal necessity for marriage was not proved – High
Court erred in holding the sale in favour of 5th defendant was not
for legal necessity and the latter was not a bona fide purchaser
for valuable consideration. [Paras 15, 19]
1.5 Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court, set aside –
Judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit, upheld. [Para 19]

Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Suit land belonging to the HUF
was sold by 1st defendant-Karta to 5th defendant-purchaser
for legal necessity of the marriage of daughter ‘K’ – High Court
held that the sale in favour of 5th defendant was not for legal
necessity and he was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable
consideration as he had not made enquiries regarding the
source of title or the manner in which the sale consideration
was distributed among coparceners, hence was not a bona
fide purchaser:
Held: The onus to prove that a sale made by the Karta on behalf
of other coparceners of HUF for legal necessity lies on the alienee/
purchaser – The 5th defendant, through deft cross examination of
the plaintiff and other evidence, established a clear nexus between
the sale transaction and the expenses undertaken for K’s marriage
and thus, discharged the onus – In these circumstances, his case
cannot be disbelieved on the ground that all the coparceners had
not received the sale consideration – This fact is in the special
knowledge of the plaintiff and other coparceners – Onus of proof
on the stranger-purchaser cannot run counter to the principle
of reverse burden enshrined in s.106 and saddle him with the
liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of
the coparceners of the HUF – Moreover, on facts, 5th defendant
could not have doubted the right of the 1st defendant to effect
the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary
prudence to purchase the suit land – High Court erroneously found
that 5th defendant’s case for sale on the ground of legal necessity
for marriage was not proved. [Paras 16, 17]
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1055

Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D)
by LRs. & Ors.

Case Law Cited
Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19
SCC 263 – relied on.
Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath [1971] 2 SCR 603 : (1970) 3 SCC
722 – referred to.

List of Keywords
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF); Karta; Coparceners of the HUF;
Legal necessity; Marriage of daughter; Suit land belonged to HUF;
Joint family property; Right of Karta to sell joint family property;
Bona fide purchaser; Valuable consideration; Onus on alienee/
purchaser; Facts within special knowledge of coparceners of the
HUF; Marriage took place prior to the sale in question; Financial
stress on family; Onus of proof on the stranger-purchaser; Principle
of reverse burden; Sale on the ground of legal necessity for marriage
proved; Suit land in the name of Karta.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5340 of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2011 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Gulbarga in RFA No. 625 of 2007

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Abhay Choudhary M, Tarun Kumar Thakur, Vivek Ram R,
Mrs. Parvati Bhat, Savyasachi, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Sr. Adv., Shreyas Mahale, John Babu,
Harisha S.R.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 12.01.2007
passed by the High Court of Karnataka reversing the judgment
1056 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga1 in
OS No. 93 of 2000 and decreeing partition and separate possession
of half share of the suit land2 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent
no.73 herein.
2. For clarity, parties are referred as per their status before Trial Court.
The plaintiff’s case is as follows:
(i) 1st defendant-Sharanappa4 is the plaintiff’s father. He had four
sons, namely, Kashiraya-plaintiff, Bhimaraya-2nd defendant5,
Mahalingappa-3rd defendant6 and Ravichandra-4th defendant7.
They constituted a Hindu Undivided Family8 and 1st defendant
was the Karta of the HUF. The suit land belonged to the HUF. 1st
defendant was addicted to alcohol and indulged in bad habits.
To meet his wayward lifestyle he had sold various parcels of
land belonging to the HUF for meagre consideration. When the
plaintiff objected, 1st defendant promised he would make fixed
deposits in the name of all his sons and will not sell the suit land.
He also stated he would settle larger sums in favour of 3rd and
4th defendants, and the suit land shall be divided amongst the
plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. 1st defendant did not deposit any
money in the name of plaintiff and 2nd defendant but deposited
large amounts in favour of 3rd and 4th defendants, and colluded
with the latter to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit land
in favour of the 5th defendant-appellant9 on 26.07.1995 without
consideration or family necessity. The plaintiff was unaware
of the sale transaction till December, 1999 as the possession
had not been handed over to the 5th defendant. Upon enquires
in December, 1999 the plaintiff came to know of the said sale
and was assured by defendant nos.1 and 3 to 5 that the deed
shall be cancelled.

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’.
2 Land measuring 9 acres 1 gunta in Survey No. 49/2, Bablad Village, Taluk and District Gulbarga,
Karnataka.
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’.
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1st defendant’.
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘2nd defendant’.
6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘3rd defendant’.
7 Hereinafter referred to as ‘4th defendant’.
8 ‘HUF’ for short.
9 Hereinafter referred to as ‘5th defendant’.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1057

Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D)
by LRs. & Ors.

(ii) When the defendants failed to cancel the deed and tried to
alienate the suit land to other parties, he filed the suit seeking
declaration that the sale deed dated 26.07.1995 was null and
void. He also prayed for partition and separate possession of
the suit land.
3. During the pendency of the suit, 1 st defendant-Karta died. 5 th
defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he
inter alia contended 1st defendant had agreed to sell the suit land for
a valuable consideration. On 18.06.1994, he received Rs.1,00,000/-
out of the said consideration and executed an agreement for sale.
The agreement for sale as well as the money receipt was signed by
his wife-Siddamma, daughter-Kashibai and 4th defendant-coparcener.
On 26.07.1995, 1st defendant obtained the remaining consideration
and executed a document which was signed by defendant nos. 3
and 4. Upon payment of the entire consideration, the sale deed
was executed showing the sale consideration as Rs.72,000/- for
court fee purposes. The sale had been executed by 1st defendant
for legal necessity owing to the marriage of his daughter Kashibai.
After the sale he was put in possession of the suit land as evident
from mutation certificate, land revenue records, etc. The suit was
a collusive one and is not maintainable as all the properties of the
HUF and other parties had not been joined in the suit.
4. The Trial Court framed eleven issues including the following:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to share
in the suit land? If so, to what extent?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in joint
possession of the suit property?
………….
6. Whether defendant no.5 proves that he is a bona fide
purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration?”
5. Plaintiff examined himself and two witnesses to prove his case that
the suit land was not sold for legal necessity while 5th defendant
examined himself and three witnesses to probabilise the contrary.
6. The Trial Court held the suit land belonged to the HUF and 1st
defendant-Karta had sold various parcels of land of the HUF to meet
financial needs of the family. On 26.07.1995, the suit land was sold
1058 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to meet the expenses of the marriage of Kashibai, that is, due to
legal necessity. Holding as such, the suit was dismissed.
7. The High Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed
the suit. The High Court held the appellant had not specifically denied
the plaintiff’s case and had not made due enquiry as to how the 1st
defendant utilized the sale consideration in question. As such, the High
Court held 5th defendant has not adduced any evidence in respect of
legal necessity and the plea that the sale was for Kashibai’s marriage
is not well founded as she had been married earlier.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From an analysis of the materials on record, the moot issue which
falls for consideration is:
Whether the suit land was sold to 5th defendant for legal
necessity i.e. the marriage of daughter Kashibai?
10. Evidence on record unequivocally shows the 1st defendant was the
Karta of an HUF of which his sons i.e., plaintiff, defendant nos. 2, 3
and 4 were coparceners. The HUF had owned various immovable
properties. Some of these properties had been sold by 1st defendant-
Karta to various alienees earlier. Plaintiff contended such sales were
to meet the extravagant and bad habits of 1st defendant and not for
legal necessity. The suit land also belonged to the HUF and had
been sold by 1st defendant-Karta.
11. Right of a Karta to sell joint family property is well settled. Karta
enjoys wide discretion with regard to existence of legal necessity and
in what way such necessity can be fulfilled. Whether legal necessity
existed justifying the sale would depend on facts of each case. In
Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr.10, this Court
succinctly elucidated:
“6. Right of the Karta to execute agreement to sell or
sale deed of a joint Hindu family property is settled and
is beyond cavil vide several judgments of this Court
including Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC
54] , wherein it has been held that a joint Hindu family is
capable of acting through its Karta or adult member of the

10 Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1059

Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D)
by LRs. & Ors.

family in management of the joint Hindu family property.
A coparcener who has right to claim a share in the joint
Hindu family estate cannot seek injunction against the
Karta restraining him from dealing with or entering into a
transaction from sale of the joint Hindu family property,
albeit post alienation has a right to challenge the alienation
if the same is not for legal necessity or for betterment of
the estate. Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family
property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the
estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members
of the family even when they are minors or widows. There
are no specific grounds that establish the existence of legal
necessity and the existence of legal necessity depends
upon facts of each case. The Karta enjoys wide discretion
in his decision over existence of legal necessity and as to
in what way such necessity can be fulfilled. The exercise
of powers given the rights of the Karta on fulfilling the
requirement of legal necessity or betterment of the estate
is valid and binding on other coparceners.
7. Elucidating the position in Hindu law, this Court in Kehar
Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018) 14 SCC 445 has referred
to Mulla on Hindu Law and the concept of legal necessity
to observe thus: (SCC pp. 449-51, paras 20-21 & 26)
“20. Mulla in his classic work Hindu Law while dealing with
the right of a father to alienate any ancestral property said
in Article 254, which reads as under:
‘Article 254
254. Alienation by father.—A Hindu father as such has
special powers of alienating coparcenary property, which
no other coparcener has. In the exercise of these powers
he may:
(1) make a gift of ancestral movable property to the extent
mentioned in Article 223, and even of ancestral immovable
property to the extent mentioned in Article 224;
(2) sell or mortgage ancestral property, whether movable
or immovable, including the interest of his sons, grandsons
and great-grandsons therein, for the payment of his own
1060 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

debt, provided the debt was an antecedent debt, and was
not incurred for immoral or illegal purposes (Article 294).’
21. What is legal necessity was also succinctly said by
Mulla in Article 241, which reads as under:
‘Article 241
241. What is legal necessity.—The following have been held
to be family necessities within the meaning of Article 240:
(a) payment of government revenue and of debts which
are payable out of the family property;
(b) maintenance of coparceners and of the members of
their families;
(c) marriage expenses of male coparceners, and of the
daughters of coparceners;
(d) performance of the necessary funeral or family
ceremonies;
(e) costs of necessary litigation in recovering or preserving
the estate;
(f) costs of defending the head of the joint family or any
other member against a serious criminal charge;
(g) payment of debts incurred for family business or other
necessary purpose. In the case of a manager other than
a father, it is not enough to show merely that the debt is
a pre-existing debt;
The above are not the only indices for concluding as to
whether the alienation was indeed for legal necessity,
nor can the enumeration of criterion for establishing legal
necessity be copious or even predictable. It must therefore
depend on the facts of each case. When, therefore, property
is sold in order to fulfil tax obligations incurred by a family
business, such alienation can be classified as constituting
legal necessity.’
(See Hindu Law by Mulla “22nd Edition”.)
***
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1061

Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D)
by LRs. & Ors.

26. Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood
proved, then, in our view, no co-coparcener (son) has a right
to challenge the sale made by the karta of his family. The
plaintiff being a son was one of the co-coparceners along
with his father Pritam Singh. He had no right to challenge
such sale in the light of findings of legal necessity being
recorded against him. It was more so when the plaintiff
failed to prove by any evidence that there was no legal
necessity for sale of the suit land or that the evidence
adduced by the defendants to prove the factum of existence
of legal necessity was either insufficient or irrelevant or
no evidence at all.”
12. Plaintiff-coparcener has assailed the sale transaction undertaken
by 1st defendant-Karta on the ground it was not made for legal
necessity but to meet his expensive and wasteful habits. Evidence
has come on record 1st defendant-Karta had previously sold various
properties of the HUF. Though it is the plaintiff’s case that such sales
were not for legal necessities, he has not challenged any of these
transactions. To justify his present claim, the plaintiff asserts the 1st
defendant assured him money derived from such sales would be
settled in favour of the sons including the plaintiff and that no other
properties would be sold. It is further the plaintiff’s case, no money
was settled in his favour or that of the 2nd defendant but substantial
sums were settled in favour of 3rd and 4th defendant. Though the
plaintiff alleges 1st defendant acted in a biased and unfair manner,
admittedly the plaintiff has not taken any steps for recovery of such
outstanding dues earlier or even in the present suit.
13. In view of such conduct, the Trial Court rightly inferred the earlier
sale transactions of HUF properties were for financial needs and
the plea that the previous HUF assets were disposed of to meet the
Karta’s extravagant habits was an afterthought.
14. With regard to the sale of the suit land to 5th defendant, the Trial
Court noted that during cross-examination the plaintiff admitted his
father had informed him that the property had been sold to meet
family needs. High Court completely glossed over this fact and
reversed the finding on a specious logic that the sale of the suit
land for Kashibai’s marriage was improbable as the marriage had
already taken place prior to the sale in question.
1062 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

15. It is true Kashibai’s marriage had taken place in 1991, couple of years
prior to the 1st defendant-Karta entering into sale of the suit property
for valuable consideration. It is common knowledge families incur
heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters and such debts
have a cascading effect on family finances down the years. Apart
from the 1st defendant-Karta disclosing to the plaintiff such sale was
to meet family needs, the money receipts for the sale consideration
were signed by two of the coparceners, as well as the 1st defendant’s
wife and daughter Kashibai, whose marriage expenses are stated
to be the reason for the sale. These circumstances demonstrate
expenses borne by the coparceners in respect of Kashibai’s marriage
created financial stress on the family leading to the sale of the suit
land. High Court overlooked these facts and came to an erroneous
finding that 5th defendant’s case for sale on the ground of legal
necessity for marriage is not proved.
16. High Court held as 5th defendant had not made enquiries regarding
the source of title or the manner in which the sale consideration
was distributed among coparceners, hence he cannot be held to
be a bona fide purchaser. We are conscious that the onus to prove
that a sale made by the Karta on behalf of other coparceners of
HUF for legal necessity lies on the alienee/purchaser11. The 5th
defendant-purchaser, through deft cross examination of the plaintiff
and other evidence, has established a clear nexus between the sale
transaction and the expenses undertaken for Kashibai’s marriage
and has thereby discharged the onus. In these circumstances, his
case cannot be disbelieved on the score that all the coparceners
had not received the sale consideration. This fact is in the special
knowledge of the plaintiff and other coparceners. Onus of proof
on the stranger-purchaser cannot run counter to the principle of
reverse burden enshrined in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872
and saddle him with the liability to prove facts which are within the
special knowledge of the coparceners of the HUF.
17. The suit land stood in the name of 1st defendant-Karta. Relying on
such land entries, 5th defendant purchased the land for valuable
consideration. The money receipts were executed by some of the
coparceners namely, defendant nos. 3 and 4 as well as Kashibai.

11 See Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722 (paras 10-11).
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1063

Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D)
by LRs. & Ors.

Given these facts, we are inclined to hold 5th defendant-purchaser
could not have doubted the right of the 1st defendant-karta to effect
the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary
prudence to purchase the suit land.
18. On the contrary, conduct of the plaintiff in belatedly challenging
the sale transaction after five years in the year 2000 raises grave
doubt regarding his bona fides. Plaintiff sought to justify the delay
by contending he was unaware of the sale since possession of the
suit land was not parted with. Such explanation is wholly facetious
as ample evidence in the form of mutation certificate, land record
entries standing in the name of 5th defendant have come on record
establishing his continued possession of the suit land. High Court
not only ignored these facts improbabilising the plaintiff’s case but
made up a third case that the plaintiff was working for gain elsewhere
and could not have been aware of the sale transaction. No such
case was either pleaded or probabilised by the plaintiff during trial.
19. In fine, we are of the view the High Court erred in holding the sale
in favour of 5th defendant was not for legal necessity and the latter
was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. As such,
we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court
and uphold the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit. The
appeal is allowed.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey