Supreme Court

Kehar Singh (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Nachittar Kaur and Ors.

MANU/SC/0874/2018

20.08.2018

Property

Once factum of existence of legal necessity stood proved, no co-coparcener (son) has a right to challenge sale made by Karta of his family

Present appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original Plaintiff against the final judgment passed by the High Court. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Defendants and dismissed the suit. It was held that, the suit land was an ancestral property of the family; that Pritam Singh being a Karta had a right to sell the suit land; that there did exist a legal necessity of the family for which the suit land was required to be sold by Karta; that there were two debts on the family and secondly the family had an agriculture land which needed improvement; that with a view to discharge the loan liability and to undertake the improvement on the land, the Karta sold the suit land for valuable consideration. The sale was, therefore, bona fide, legal and made for valuable consideration. It is, therefore, binding on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

The main question for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in holding that, the sale made by Defendant No. 1-Pritam Singh in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was for legal necessity and, if so, whether it was legal and valid sale.

The approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on the question of legal necessity as to whether it existed in this case while selling the suit land by Pritam Singh or not does not call for any interference as the same was rightly dealt with by the High Court while appreciating the evidence on record.

It has come in evidence that firstly, the family owed two debts and secondly, the family also needed money to make improvement in agriculture land belonging to the family. Pritam Singh, being a Karta of the family, had every right to sell the suit land belonging to family to discharge the debt liability and spend some money to make improvement in agriculture land for the maintenance of his family. These facts were also mentioned in the sale deed. A case of legal necessity for sale of ancestral property by the Karta was, therefore, made out on facts. The Defendants were able to discharge the burden that lay on them to prove the existence of legal necessity for sale of suit land to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The Defendants thus satisfied the test laid down in Hindu law as explained by Mulla in Article 254(2) read with Article 241(a) and (g) quoted above.

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. The Plaintiff being a son was one of the co-coparceners along with his father-Pritam Singh. He had no right to challenge such sale in the light of findings of legal necessity being recorded against him. It was more so when the Plaintiff failed to prove by any evidence that, there was no legal necessity for sale of the suit land or that the evidence adduced by the Defendants to prove the factum of existence of legal necessity was either insufficient or irrelevant or no evidence at all. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is just and proper. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : Sale Legal necessity Proof

Share :