Karta’s Power to Alienate Family Property Upheld: SC Recognises Marriage Expenses as Legal Necessity

The institution of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) continues to play a central role in Indian property law. The Karta, as head of the HUF, is entrusted with managing family property for the benefit of all coparceners. However, his power to alienate HUF property has always been subject to the test of legal necessity or benefit of the estate. This principle ensures a balance between the Karta’s authority and the coparceners’ rights.

In a landmark ruling in Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5340/2017, decided on 16 September 2025), the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of legal necessity, specifically recognising that marriage debts and their lingering financial burden constitute legal necessity. This judgment is significant because it reaffirms the discretionary powers of a Karta and underlines the principle that debts incurred for a daughter’s marriage—even years before a sale—can justify alienation of joint family property.

This article examines the factual background, the legal principles involved, the reasoning of the courts, and the broader implications of this ruling.

Factual Background

The dispute concerned land measuring 9 acres 1 gunta situated in Bablad Village, Gulbarga, Karnataka. The property was part of the HUF estate managed by the Karta, Sharanappa, father of four sons:

• Kashiraya (Plaintiff),
• Bhimaraya (Defendant No. 2),
• Mahalingappa (Defendant No. 3), and
• Ravichandra (Defendant No. 4).

The Karta sold the suit land in 1995 to the appellant-purchaser, Dastagirsab (Defendant No. 5). The plaintiff, one of the coparceners, challenged the sale on the following grounds:

1. The sale was executed without legal necessity.
2. It was done to fuel the Karta’s alcohol addiction and wasteful lifestyle.
3. No consideration was passed, and the alienation was therefore void.

The plaintiff also sought partition and separate possession of his share in the suit land.

On the other hand, the appellant-purchaser defended the transaction by contending:

• The sale was for valuable consideration, partly paid in advance in 1994.
• The alienation was necessitated by the marriage of the Karta’s daughter, Kashibai, which had created financial stress on the family.
• Mutation records and revenue entries confirmed the transfer of possession.

Thus, the central controversy revolved around whether the alienation satisfied the requirement of legal necessity.

Trial Court’s Findings

The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, upholding the sale. The Trial Court reasoned that:

• The suit land belonged to the HUF.
• The Karta had earlier sold other family properties to meet financial needs.
• The 1995 sale was made to cover expenses incurred in the marriage of Kashibai.
• Such an alienation fell squarely within the definition of legal necessity.
• Accordingly, the purchaser was held to be a bona fide transferee, and the challenge by the plaintiff was rejected.

High Court’s Reversal

Karnataka High Court, however, reversed the Trial Court’s decree and allowed the plaintiff’s suit. The High Court concluded that:

• The purchaser had not made sufficient enquiry regarding the purpose of the sale.
• Kashibai’s marriage had taken place in 1991, four years before the sale; hence, the claim of marriage expenses was untenable.
• The purchaser had failed to discharge the burden of proving legal necessity.
• Thus, the High Court decreed partition and separate possession, effectively nullifying the sale deed.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The matter reached the Supreme Court of India, which framed the central issue:

• Whether the alienation of the suit land by the Karta in 1995 was justified by legal necessity, i.e., to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter Kashibai?

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Legal Position of the Karta

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that the Karta of an HUF has wide discretionary powers to alienate joint family property if:

• There exists a legal necessity, or
• The alienation is for the benefit of the estate.

This principle, recognised in Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54 and Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath (2021) 19 SCC 263, binds all coparceners, including minors and widows, provided the necessity is genuine.

2. What Constitutes Legal Necessity?

Relying on Mulla’s Hindu Law (22nd Edition), the Court reiterated that legal necessity includes:

• Payment of government revenue and debts,
• Maintenance of coparceners,
• Marriage expenses of male coparceners and daughters,
• Funeral and family ceremonies,
• Costs of litigation to preserve the estate,
• Defence against serious criminal charges, and
• Family business debts.

Thus, marriage expenses are explicitly recognised as a legal necessity.

3. Cascading Effect of Marriage Debts

The Court addressed the High Court’s objection that Kashibai’s marriage had taken place before the sale. It was observed that:

• Families often incur heavy debts for their daughters’ marriages.
• Such debts may have a long-lasting, cascading effect on finances.
• Even years after the marriage, the family may be compelled to alienate property to discharge these debts.

Therefore, the timing of the marriage was immaterial; the financial burden arising from it justified the sale.

4. Evidence Supporting the Sale

The Court noted several circumstances demonstrating legal necessity:

• The Karta had informed the plaintiff that the sale was to meet family needs.
• Money receipts bore signatures of coparceners and family members, including Kashibai herself.
• Mutation certificates and land revenue records confirmed possession of the purchaser.

Hence, the nexus between the sale and marriage expenses was clearly established.

5. Burden of Proof

While acknowledging that the onus lies on the purchaser to establish legal necessity, the Court clarified that this burden is not absolute. Facts within the special knowledge of coparceners cannot be expected to be proved by a stranger-purchaser (Section 106, Evidence Act, 1872). In this case, the purchaser successfully demonstrated reasonable enquiry and prudence.

6. Plaintiff’s Delay and Conduct

The Court criticised the plaintiff for challenging the sale belatedly in 2000, five years after execution, despite revenue entries in the purchaser’s name. This raised doubts about his bona fides. The Court held the plaintiff’s explanation—that he was unaware of the sale as possession was not delivered—was wholly untenable.

Supreme Court’s Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the Trial Court’s decree dismissing the suit. Key conclusions included:

• Marriage expenses constitute legal necessity, even if the marriage occurred years earlier, due to the cascading effect of debts.
• The purchaser was a bona fide transferee for consideration.
• The Karta’s alienation of HUF property was therefore valid and binding on all coparceners.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthening Market Confidence: Purchasers of HUF property can now rely more securely on alienations executed by the Karta, provided prima facie necessity is demonstrated.
2. Expanded Scope of Legal Necessity: The recognition of cascading marriage debts expands the scope of legal necessity, covering long-term obligations.
3. Judicial Approach to Social Customs: The Court’s sensitivity to Indian cultural practices—particularly the economic burden of marriages—shows a pragmatic, context-based approach to Hindu law.
4. Future Disputes on HUF Property: Coparceners seeking to challenge alienations must now present strong, timely, and consistent evidence. Mere allegations of wasteful spending are insufficient.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa (2025 INSC 1120) is a landmark affirmation of the Karta’s power to alienate HUF property. By recognising marriage expenses—even past ones—as a valid ground of legal necessity, the Court has harmonised traditional Hindu law with the socio-economic realities of Indian families.

The judgment strengthens the Karta’s authority, protects bona fide purchasers, and narrows the grounds for belated challenges by dissatisfied coparceners. Most importantly, it reflects the Court’s awareness of how marriage-related debts often burden families for years, thereby justifying alienation as a means of financial survival.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams