Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) 2025 INSC 1120 - Hindu Law - Karta - HUF

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: Dastagirsab Appellant(s) vs. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors. Respondent(s)
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1120

Coram (Judges)

• Justice Sandeep Mehta
• Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Judgment Date

• Date: September 16, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

• Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr.Citation: (2021) 19 SCC 263
• Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar SutarCitation: (1996) 8 SCC 54
• Kehar Singh v. Nachittar KaurCitation: (2018) 14 SCC 445
• Rani v. Santa Bala DebnathCitation: (1970) 3 SCC 722

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Hindu Law (as per Mulla’s treatise)
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

1. What is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and who is a Karta?

A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a legal entity under Hindu law consisting of persons lineally descended from a common ancestor. All coparceners (members with a birthright in the property) hold joint title to the HUF property. The Karta is the manager or head of the HUF, typically the eldest male member, who has significant powers to manage and dispose of HUF property, including for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate.

2. What are the powers of a Karta regarding the sale of HUF property?

A Karta possesses wide discretion in managing HUF property and can sell or mortgage ancestral property, including the interests of other coparceners, for "legal necessity" or for the "betterment of the estate." Such an alienation binds all undivided members of the family, even minors or widows. However, coparceners have the right to challenge the alienation if it is not for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate.

3. What constitutes "legal necessity" for alienating HUF property?

"Legal necessity" is not exhaustively defined and depends on the facts of each case. However, common examples include:

• Payment of government revenue and family debts.
• Maintenance of coparceners and their families.
• Marriage expenses of male coparceners and daughters of coparceners.
• Performance of necessary funeral or family ceremonies.
• Costs of necessary litigation to recover or preserve the estate.
• Costs of defending a family member against a serious criminal charge.
• Payment of debts incurred for family business or other necessary purposes. The Karta has wide discretion in determining if such a necessity exists and how to fulfill it.

4. What is the burden of proof when challenging an alienation of HUF property by a Karta?

The onus to prove that a sale by the Karta was for legal necessity lies on the alienee (the purchaser). However, this burden is not absolute and does not require the purchaser to prove facts solely within the special knowledge of the coparceners. For instance, if the purchaser establishes a clear nexus between the sale and a family need, they are considered to have discharged their onus.

5. Can a coparcener challenge a Karta's sale if the consideration was not equally distributed among all coparceners?

No, the fact that all coparceners did not receive the sale consideration is not sufficient grounds to disbelieve the purchaser's case, especially if a clear nexus between the sale and a legal necessity has been established. The distribution of funds among coparceners is a matter within the special knowledge of the HUF members, not the purchaser.

6. What was the central dispute in the case of Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa?

The core issue in Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa was whether the suit land, part of an HUF property, was sold by the Karta (Sharanappa, the 1st defendant) to the 5th defendant for "legal necessity," specifically the marriage expenses of his daughter, Kashibai. The plaintiff, a coparcener, argued the sale was not for legal necessity but to fund the Karta's bad habits.

7. Why did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court's decision in this case?

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision because it found the High Court erroneously concluded that the sale was not for legal necessity and that the purchaser was not bona fide. The Supreme Court noted that:

• The plaintiff admitted his father informed him the property was sold for family needs.
• Heavy debts are often incurred for daughters' marriages, and such debts can persist.
• Money receipts for the sale were signed by other coparceners, the Karta's wife, and Kashibai, indicating family involvement and financial stress from the marriage.
• The purchaser had established a clear nexus between the sale and Kashibai's marriage expenses, thereby discharging his burden of proof.
• The plaintiff's delay of five years in challenging the sale, despite evidence of the purchaser's possession through mutation certificates and land records, raised doubts about his bona fides.

8. What does this case illustrate about the purchaser's responsibility when buying HUF property from a Karta?

This case highlights that while the purchaser has the onus to prove legal necessity, they are not expected to delve into the internal financial distribution of the HUF. If they act with ordinary prudence, rely on land entries showing the Karta's name, and secure acknowledgments from other family members regarding the transaction and its stated purpose (like marriage expenses), they can be considered a bona fide purchaser. The principle of "reverse burden" under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, implies that facts within the special knowledge of the HUF members cannot be solely placed on the stranger-purchaser to prove.