AIR 2018 SC 3907 ::AIROnline 2018 SC 274 ::AIR 2018 SC (Civil) 2713 ::(2019) 132 All LR 740 ::(2018) 5 Mad LW 780 ::(2018) 6 Kant LJ 109 ::(2018) 4 Pat LJR 80 ::(2018) 5 AndhLD 179 ::(2019) 194 AllIndCas 176 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From: AIR 2006 PandH 233)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Abhay Manohar Sapre, Sanjay Kishan Kaul , JJ

Hindu Law - Ancestral property - Alienation by Karta - Existence of legal necessity proved - Co-coparcener (son) has no right to challenge sale made by Karta of his family. Karta of the family, had every right to sell the suit land belonging to family to discharge the debt liability and spend some money to make improvement in agriculture land for the maintenance of his family. In present case, evidence showing that family owed two debts and also needed money to make improvement in agricultural land belonging to family and therefore a case of legal necessity for sale of ancestral property by the Karta was, therefore, made out on facts. In other words, the defendants were able to discharge the burden that lay on them to prove the existence of legal necessity for sale of suit land to them. Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood proved, then, no co-coparcener (son) has a right to challenge the sale made by the Karta of his family. The plaintiff being a son was one of the co-coparceners along with his father. He had no right to challenge such sale in view of findings of legal necessity being recorded against him. It was more so when the plaintiff failed to prove by any evidence that there was no legal necessity for sale of the suit land or that the evidence adduced by the defendants to prove the factum of existence of legal necessity was either ins....