Summary and Analysis of Dastagirsab vs Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil D by LRs & Ors 2025 INSC 1120

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1120 (Civil Appeal No. 5340 of 2017)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: September 16, 2025

2. Related Laws and Legal Principles

The judgment revolves around and elaborates on the following core legal principles of Hindu Law and the Indian Evidence Act:

• The Authority of the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF): The power of the Karta (manager) to alienate (sell or mortgage) joint family property for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

• Legal Necessity: As defined in Mulla's Hindu Law (Article 241), it includes expenses for:
  Payment of government revenue and debts.
  Maintenance of coparceners and their families.
  Marriage expenses of male coparceners and the daughters of coparceners.
  Performance of necessary funeral or family ceremonies.
  Costs of necessary litigation.

• Burden of Proof: The initial burden is on the alienee (the purchaser) to prove that the sale was for a legal necessity or that he made reasonable and bona fide enquiries about the existence of such a necessity. (Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722).

• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person. The Court held that the distribution of sale consideration among coparceners is a fact within their special knowledge, and the entire burden cannot be placed on the purchaser.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellant: Dastagirsab (the original 5th Defendant - Purchaser of the property)

• Respondents: Sharanappa (deceased Karta, 1st Defendant) represented by his Legal Representatives, and his sons (original Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4).

• Subject Matter: Suit land measuring 9 acres 1 gunta in Survey No. 49/2, Bablad Village, Gulbarga, Karnataka.

• History of Litigation:
  Trial Court (Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga): Dismissed the plaintiff's suit, upholding the sale by the Karta (1st defendant) to the appellant (5th defendant) as being for legal necessity.
  High Court of Karnataka: Reversed the Trial Court's decision. It decreed partition and granted half share of the suit land to the plaintiff, holding that the sale was not proven to be for legal necessity and that the purchaser was not bona fide.
  Supreme Court: Allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree dismissing the suit.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background Facts

The property belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) with Sharanappa (1st defendant) as its Karta. His four sons, including the plaintiff Kashiraya, were coparceners. The plaintiff sued his father and brothers, challenging a sale deed dated July 26, 1995, executed by the Karta (his father) in favor of Dastagirsab (5th defendant/appellant). The plaintiff alleged that his father was addicted to alcohol and sold HUF properties, including the suit land, to fund his bad habits without any legal necessity. He claimed he was unaware of the sale until 1999.

The purchaser (appellant) defended the sale, contending it was for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,72,000 (though recorded as Rs. 72,000 for court fee purposes). He claimed the sale was for the legal necessity of meeting the marriage expenses of the Karta's daughter, Kashibai. Money receipts were signed by the Karta's wife, daughter Kashibai, and one coparcener (4th defendant).

Core Issue Before the Supreme Court

The central question for the Supreme Court's determination was: "Whether the suit land was sold to the 5th defendant for legal necessity i.e., the marriage of daughter Kashibai?"

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court conducted an in-depth analysis and reversed the High Court's decision for the following reasons:

1. Reaffirmation of the Karta's Powers: The Court began by reiterating the settled law from precedents like Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263 and Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54. It emphasized that a Karta has wide discretion to assess the existence of legal necessity and to decide how to fulfill it. An alienation for legal necessity binds all coparceners, even minors.

2. Legal Necessity for Daughter's Marriage is Valid: The High Court had erroneously held that since Kashibai's marriage took place in 1991 and the sale occurred in 1995, the necessity could not exist. The Supreme Court rejected this "specious logic." It held that it is common for families to incur heavy debts for marriages, and the financial strain from such expenses can cascade for years. A sale to repay debts incurred for a daughter's marriage qualifies as a valid legal necessity even if it happens years after the event.

3. Discharge of Burden of Proof by the Purchaser: The Court held that the appellant (purchaser) had successfully discharged his burden of proving legal necessity through:
 The admission of the plaintiff during cross-examination that his father had told him the property was sold for "family needs."
The money receipts signed by the Karta's wife, the daughter (Kashibai) whose marriage was the cause, and a coparcener (4th defendant), creating a clear nexus between the sale and the marriage expenses.

4. Burden Cannot Extend to Internal Family Distribution: The Court crucially noted that the High Court erred in expecting the purchaser to prove how the sale consideration was distributed among the coparceners. Relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that this fact was within the special knowledge of the plaintiff and other coparceners. The purchaser's duty is to prove the existence of necessity, not to audit the internal financial dealings of the HUF.

5. Purchaser was Bona Fide: The Court found the purchaser to be a bona fide buyer for valuable consideration. He relied on the land records which showed the Karta as the owner, and the transaction was corroborated by signatures of family members. He acted with the prudence of an ordinary man.

6. Plaintiff's Conduct Was Unworthy: The Supreme Court noted the plaintiff's suit, filed five years after the sale, was belated. His claim of being unaware was contradicted by mutation and land revenue records in the purchaser's name. The High Court's assumption that the plaintiff worked elsewhere was an invented theory not supported by evidence.

Conclusion and Supreme Court Directions

In its final ruling, the Supreme Court held:

• The sale of the joint family property by the Karta (1st defendant) to the appellant (5th defendant) was for a legal necessity, namely, to meet the expenses incurred for his daughter's marriage.

• The appellant was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.

• The alienation was therefore valid and binding on all coparceners, including the plaintiff.

• The impugned judgment and decree of the High Court were set aside.

• The judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was restored.

Final Outcome: The appeal was allowed. The plaintiff's suit for declaration and partition stood dismissed. The sale deed in favor of the appellant (Dastagirsab) was declared valid.