MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Delhi High Court Upholds HUF Property Status: Karta Lacks Individual Authority to Sell HUF Property

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that reinforces the legal status of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties, the Delhi High Court, presided by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, delivered a landmark judgment on November 1st, 2023. The Court held that a Karta, or the head of an HUF, lacks the authority to unilaterally sell HUF property. This ruling came in the context of a complex legal battle involving the sale of property initially acquired from compensation for ancestral property left in Pakistan.

The judgment is poised to have far-reaching implications on how HUF properties are dealt with in legal transactions. Justice Krishna, in her observation, stated, “Karta lacked authority to sell HUF property individually,” underscoring the legal limitations faced by the Karta in dealing with HUF assets. The Court further clarified the distinction between a Karta’s management rights over HUF property and the lack of authority to unilaterally execute sales agreements.

The case, involving Capt. Rajesh Sethi, his father Col. P.C. Sethi, and others, revolved around a disputed Agreement to Sell concerning a property in Defence Colony, New Delhi. The property, acquired post-partition, was contended to be an HUF property. While Capt. Sethi sought a declaration that the Agreement to Sell was void, the buyer, Sh. Ravinder Nangia, sought specific performance of the agreement.

In a pivotal part of the judgment, the Court dismissed the plea for specific performance by Sh. Ravinder Nangia, stating that he failed to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the Agreement to Sell. The Court observed, “Merely stating the readiness in the plaint itself is not sufficient to meet the rigors of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”

However, in a partial relief to Nangia, the Court directed the refund of the advance amount of Rs. 39,00,000/- paid by him, along with interest, while dismissing his claim for damages.

This judgment reaffirms the legal sanctity of HUF properties and the limitations on the Karta’s powers in their alienation. Legal experts view this as a landmark decision that will guide future transactions and disputes involving HUF properties. The detailed analysis of HUF property laws and the Karta’s authority therein serves as a precedent in similar legal matters.

Date of Decision: 1st November, 2023

CPT. RAJESH SETHI S.C. VS P.C. SETHI

Latest Legal News