| Court: | Supreme Court of India |
| Head Notes: | BEEREDDY DASARATHARAMI REDDY …..Vs V. MANJUNATH AND ANOTHER Sub-Whether Karta of a HUF has the power to sale immovable property belonging to the family without consent of all the coparceners of the family. The Supreme Court in this case was considering an appeal where the action of Karta to sale the property of the HUF was held to be invalid in view of the fact that the son of the Karta had not signed the sale agreement and it was contended that the Karta had no power to sale the property. The Supreme Court while dealing with the law on the subject held that 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 and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others(1996) 8 SCC 54(SC) wherein it has been held that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or adult member of the 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 legal necessity in this case was fulfilled as by its own affidavit HUF contended that it needed money at the time of sale. Thus, the appeal of the buyer was allowed and the HUF was directed to transfer the property as per the sale agreement. Ramesh Patodia |
| Law: | Other Laws |
| Section(s): | Hindu Law |
| Counsel(s): | Counsels |
| Dowload Pdf File | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| Uploaded By | CA Ramesh Patodia |
| Date of upload: | December 13, 2021 |
Extracts (with selected portions highlighted in FONT) (:
“Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others(1996) 8 SCC 54(SC) wherein it has been HELD THAT A JOINT HINDU FAMILY IS CAPABLE OF ACTING THROUGH ITS KARTA OR ADULT MEMBER OF THE FAMILY IN MANAGEMENT OF THE JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY.”
………………..
“The legal necessity in this case was fulfilled AS BY ITS OWN AFFIDAVIT HUF contended that it needed money at the time of sale.”
SC ‘s Opinion (:
“In the instant case the finding recorded by the courts below is that Jagabandhu, the eldest male member in the family acted as a Karta in executing the sale and HAD JOINED WITH HIM THE TWO WIDOWS FOR THEMSELVES AND AS GUARDIANS OF THE MINOR MEMBERS OF JOINT HINDU FAMILY, AS SUPPORTING EXECUTANTS. THAT ACT BY ITSELF IS NOT INDICATIVE OF THE MINORS HAVING A DIVIDED INTEREST IN THE JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY COMMENCING BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF THE SALE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, SECTION 8 OF THE ACT CAN BE OF NO AVAIL TO THE APPELLANT’S CLAIM TO NULLIFY THE SALE.”
TEXT of the SC Judgment cited, relied on and followed in the instant case had been reported @https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122752/
So far as read and personally understood, the decision of the apex court cannot be regarded to be of avail on the karta’s right to dispose of HUF property, in all cases,without concurrence of all the coparceners, as a general proposition; except on the special facts of the case decided !
Anyone with a different but eminent view to spare and share ?