Summary
A son challenged his father’s sale of ancestral agricultural land. Applying Hindu-law principles after an earlier remand, the Supreme Court upheld the finding that the father, as Karta, sold the land for legal necessity: discharge of family debts and improvements to family agricultural land. The purchasers had discharged their burden, and dismissal of the suit was affirmed.
Issues
- Whether the purchasers proved legal necessity supporting the Karta’s sale of ancestral property.
Held
- The ancestral character of the land was unchallenged. The surviving issue was whether the sale was supported by legal necessity under Hindu law; the relevant necessities depend on the facts rather than an exhaustive catalogue. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Evidence established two family debts and the need for agricultural improvements for family maintenance, also recited in the sale deed. The High Court properly assessed that evidence, and the purchasers discharged their burden of proving legal necessity. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27)
- With legal necessity established, the son’s coparcenary interest did not invalidate this sale by the Karta. He had not displaced the evidence or shown it insufficient, irrelevant or non-existent. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court’s decision upholding the sale and dismissing the son’s suit stood affirmed.