'Debts Incurred For Marriage Have Cascading Effect' : Supreme Court Upholds HUF Karta's Sale Of Family Property After Daughter's Marriage

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is empowered to alienate joint family property for purposes of 'legal necessity,' which includes a daughter's marriage. The Court clarified that such alienation remains valid even if the marriage had already taken place prior to the transfer of the property.

“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 said, justifying alienation of property to cope with the expenses incurred by Karta in his daughter's marriage.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which held that the sale deed executed to alienate joint family property years after the wedding could not be justified as a legal necessity warranting alienation by Karta.

The suit was filed by one of the four sons of the 1st defendant (father), challenging the sale of the HUF property. The 5th defendant (purchaser) defended the sale relying upon the statements of the karta and his wife that the sale was to meet the expenses incurred for the daughter's marriage. The trial court had dismissed the suit. But the High Court reversed the trial court's judgment and cancelled the sale deed.

The judgment authored by Justice Bagchi held that the purchaser had successfully discharged the burden of proving 'legal necessity,' as the property was alienated by the Karta to meet expenses for his daughter's wedding. The Court noted that the money receipts bore the signatures of not only the Karta but also his wife, daughter, and two sons, reflecting family consent to the transaction. Accordingly, the High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court.

“We are conscious that the onus to prove that a sale made by the Karta on behalf of other coparceners of HUF for legal necessity lies on the alienee/purchaser. 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 and has thereby discharged the onus. In these circumstances, his case cannot be disbelieved on the score that all the coparceners had not received the sale consideration.”, the court observed.

The Court further held that the mere fact that a coparcener did not receive the consideration amount is not a valid ground to challenge an alienation made by the Karta, since proving such non-receipt lies within the special knowledge of the coparcener under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and this burden cannot be shifted onto the purchaser.

“This fact is in the special knowledge of the plaintiff and other coparceners. 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 and saddle him with the liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of the coparceners of the HUF.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: DASTAGIRSAB VERSUS SHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA(D)BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Abhay Choudhary M, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Vivek Ram R, Adv. Mrs. Parvati Bhat, Adv. Mr. Savyasachi, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shreyas Mahale, Adv. Mr. John Babu, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.r., AOR