In Brief
The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell joint Hindu family agricultural property. The Karta (manager) of the family had executed the agreement, though not all adult family members signed it. The Court held that a Karta may alienate joint Hindu family property for legal necessity without requiring signatures from all coparceners. Since the family needed funds for domestic necessities and to clear bank mortgages on the property, legal necessity was established. The Court distinguished Pemmada Prabhakar, which dealt with intestate succession, not joint family property. The buyer was entitled to specific performance, with the respondents bound to execute the sale deed despite transfers made during the litigation, subject to the doctrine of lis pendens.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.