Stranger-Purchaser Can’t Be Saddled With Liability To Prove Facts Which Are Within Special Knowledge Of Coparceners Of HUF: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reversing the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, decreeing partition and separate possession of the half share of the suit land in favour of one of the plaintiff-respondents.

The Division Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “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. 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.”

Factual Background

The first defendant (plaintiff’s father) had four sons, namely, Kashiraya-plaintiff, Bhimaraya-defendant 5, Mahalingappa-defendant 6 and Ravichandra-defendant 4. They constituted a Hindu Undivided Family, and the first defendant was the Karta of the HUF. The suit land belonged to the HUF. The defendant was addicted to alcohol, and to support his wayward lifestyle, he had sold various parcels of land belonging to the HUF for meagre consideration. The plaintiff objected to the same. The first defendant did not deposit any money in the name of the plaintiff and the second defendant, but deposited large amounts in favour of the third and fourth defendants, and colluded with the latter to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the fifth defendant without consideration or family necessity.

When the defendants failed to cancel the deed and tried to alienate the suit land to other parties, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed was null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant, Karta, died. The fifth defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein he contended that the first defendant had agreed to sell the suit land for a valuable consideration. Thereafter, the first defendant obtained the remaining consideration and executed a document which was signed by the third and fourth defendants. It was contended that the sale had been executed by the first defendant for legal necessity owing to the marriage of his daughter Kashibai. After the sale, he was put in possession of the suit.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the suit land belonged to the HUF and the first defendant-Karta had sold various parcels of land of the HUF to meet financial needs of the family. It was held that the suit land was sold to meet the expenses of the marriage of Kashibai due to legal necessity.The High Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the suit. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Noting that the right of a Karta to sell joint family property is well settled, the Bench said, “Karta enjoys wide discretion with regard to existence of legal necessity and in what way such necessity can be fulfilled. Whether legal necessity existed justifying the sale would depend on facts of each case.”

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that evidence had come on record that the first defendant, Karta, had previously sold various properties of the HUF. Though it was the plaintiff’s case that such sales were not for legal necessities, he had not challenged any of these transactions. “Though the plaintiff alleges 1st defendant acted in a biased and unfair manner, admittedly the plaintiff has not taken any steps for recovery of such outstanding dues earlier or even in the present suit”, it added. As per the Bench, the Trial Court rightly inferred that the earlier sale transactions of HUF properties were for financial needs, and the plea that the previous HUF assets were disposed of to meet the Karta’s extravagant habits was an afterthought.

It also came to light that the expenses borne by the coparceners in respect of Kashibai’s marriage created financial stress on the family, leading to the sale of the suit land. “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”, it stated.

It was also noticed that the suit land stood in the name of the first defendant-Karta. Relying on such land entries, the fifth defendant purchased the land for valuable consideration. The money receipts were executed by some of the coparceners namely, the third and fourth defendants, as well as Kashibai. In light of such circumstances, the Bench held that the fifth defendant-purchaser could not have doubted the right of the first defendant-karta to effect the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary prudence to purchase the suit land.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the conduct of the plaintiff in belatedly challenging the sale transaction after five years in 2000 raised grave doubt regarding his bona fides. As per the Bench, the High Court erred in holding that the sale in favour of the fifth defendant was not for legal necessity, and the latter was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and upheld the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit.

Cause Title: Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1120)

Click here to read/download Judgment