'Karta' of HUF can sell joint family property as per legal necessity: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said a 'Karta' of a Hindu Undivided Family can sell a joint family property for the legal necessity, which would depend upon facts of each case.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi upheld dismissal of a suit filed by Kashiraya-plaintiff against his father defendant-Sharanappa for the 1995 sale of a land parcel in Kalaburgi's Bablad village, owing purportedly to meet marriage expenses of the daughter.

The Karnataka High Court, however, in 2007 set aside the dismissal of the suit, by holding that the sale was not for legal necessity and the purchaser was not a bona fide one.

Examining the appeal, the bench said, "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/purchaser.''

In its judgment, the court, however, stressed that the onus of proof on the stranger-purchaser cannot run counter to the principle of reverse burden enshrined in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and saddle him with the liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of the coparceners of the HUF.

In the case, the court found the purchaser could not have doubted the right of the 'Karta' to effect the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary prudence to purchase the suit land.

It noted that the conduct of the plaintiff in belatedly challenging the sale transaction after five years raised grave doubt regarding his bona fides.

The son claimed his father was addicted to alcohol and indulged in bad habits. In order to meet his wayward lifestyle, he had sold various parcels of land belonging to the HUF for meagre consideration, he claimed.

The court, however, noted the son had never questioned the previous sale deeds.

The high court had reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the purchaser has not adduced any evidence in respect of legal necessity. The HC also said the contention that the sale was for daughter's marriage was not well founded as she had been married earlier.

"It is true that the daughter’s marriage had taken place in 1991, couple of years prior to the Karta entering into sale of the suit property for valuable consideration. It is common knowledge that families incur heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters and such debts have a cascading effect on family finances down the years,'' the bench said.

Setting aside the HC's judgment, the bench said 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.