In Brief
A father (Karta) of a Hindu Undivided Family sold ancestral land to a third party for valuable consideration, claiming legal necessity due to marriage expenses of his daughter. His son sued to declare the sale void and sought partition. The Trial Court upheld the sale as valid; the High Court reversed, finding no proof of legal necessity. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's judgment. The Court held that a Karta's wide discretion to determine legal necessity is binding on coparceners. The purchaser proved the nexus between the sale and the daughter's marriage expenses through evidence, discharged the onus of proving legal necessity, and acted as a bona fide purchaser. The son's belated challenge after five years, claiming ignorance despite public notice via land records, was rejected as facetious.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.