In Brief
This appeal concerned whether family members of a Hindu joint family Karta (manager) could claim rights in scheduled properties that the Karta had sold for legal necessity. The High Court had ruled that respondents were entitled to a 3/4th share in those properties. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that when a Karta validly sells joint family property for legal necessity and receives adequate consideration, family members have no residual rights in such property. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.