Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News