Marriage May Have Happened Before, But Debt Doesn’t Die Easily: Supreme Court Upholds Sale of HUF Property for Daughter’s Marriage as Legal Necessity

“Karta’s Right to Sell for Legal Necessity Is Not a Fairytale—It’s a Shield Against Disruption of Joint Family Stability,” Supreme Court of India delivered a ruling that reiterates and reestablishes the foundational Hindu law principle: a Karta’s alienation of joint family property is binding if done for legal necessity, and sale for a daughter's marriage—even if belated—is one such necessity.

The Court held, “A coparcener who has right to claim a share in the joint Hindu family estate cannot seek injunction against the Karta… albeit post alienation has a right to challenge the alienation if the same is not for legal necessity or for betterment of the estate.”

This judgment came in appeal against a decision of the Karnataka High Court which had reversed the Trial Court’s findings and decreed partition of ancestral property on the ground that the Karta had alienated joint family land without family necessity. The Apex Court, however, held otherwise, and restored the dismissal of the suit, defending both the discretion of the Karta and the bona fide rights of the purchaser.

“The Karta Sold the Land Four Years After the Marriage—That Delay Does Not Disqualify the Legal Necessity,” Observes the Court While Slamming the High Court’s Narrow View of Family Need

The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the High Court’s conclusion that the sale was invalid because the marriage had taken place years earlier. The High Court had ruled that since the marriage of the Karta’s daughter Kashibai took place in 1991, and the land was sold in 1995, the connection to marriage expenses was an afterthought.

Rejecting this rigid approach, the Court emphasized the social and economic realities of Indian families. It observed, “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.”

The Court further noted that the money receipt was signed not only by the Karta but also by two coparceners, the Karta’s wife and daughter—clearly acknowledging the purpose and necessity of the transaction. In that context, the Court ruled that the sale was neither gratuitous nor arbitrary but rooted in the continuing burden of familial obligation.

“Bona Fide Purchaser Cannot Be Made a Victim of Family Disputes” – Supreme Court Upholds the Validity of Transaction Made in Good Faith with HUF Karta

The appellant–the fifth defendant–had purchased the land for consideration based on title records, with mutation and land revenue entries reflecting possession in his name. The High Court, however, faulted him for not investigating how the sale consideration was distributed among coparceners.

The Supreme Court categorically rejected this line of reasoning, stating, “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.”

It further observed, “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.”

In essence, the Court ruled that when a sale is executed by a Karta, duly supported by documentation, and some coparceners have endorsed the transaction, the purchaser is not expected to carry the burden of proving internal family dynamics or fund distribution.

“Legal Necessity Is Not a Mathematical Proof; It Is a Real Life Obligation”—Supreme Court Emphasizes the Karta's Discretion Under Hindu Law

In reinforcing the legal foundation of the Karta’s authority, the Supreme Court quoted from Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath, where it was held:

“There are no specific grounds that establish the existence of legal necessity… 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 Court further cited Mulla’s Hindu Law, affirming that “marriage expenses of coparceners and their daughters” is a settled ground of legal necessity.

“Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood proved, then, no co-coparcener (son) has a right to challenge the sale made by the Karta of his family,” declared the Bench, dismissing the claim that the alienation was fraudulent or excessive.

“Delayed Objection Defeats the Plaintiff’s Bona Fides”—Court Finds Partition Suit Was an Afterthought

One of the most striking observations came when the Court noted the five-year delay in filing the partition suit after the 1995 sale. The plaintiff, one of the sons, claimed he was unaware of the transaction until 1999, and challenged it in 2000.

The Court labelled this explanation “wholly facetious,” noting that mutation and land records clearly reflected the sale and possession of the appellant. It stated, “Conduct of the plaintiff in belatedly challenging the sale transaction… raises grave doubt regarding his bona fides.”

The Apex Court also pointed out that the plaintiff had not challenged earlier sales by the same Karta, nor had he taken steps to seek any accounting of proceeds from those sales. This selective challenge, the Court noted, undermined his credibility and suggested a calculated attempt to question only the transactions unfavourable to him.

Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Decree, Protects Family Stability and Purchaser’s Rights

In conclusion, the Supreme Court observed: “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.”

Accordingly, it held: “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.”

The judgment reaffirms that legal necessity is not always immediate, and that familial responsibilities such as marriage expenses can cast long financial shadows, justifying alienation by the Karta. It also fortifies the position of third-party purchasers who act in good faith based on title records and consent of some coparceners.

Date of Judgment: 16 September 2025