DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

2016-17

“Final Draft”

“FAMILY LAW”
“ Benefit of estate as basis of alienation by karta ”

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mrs.Samreen Hussain Amit singh

Associate Professor ( Law ) Roll No. 12, Semester-4

RMLNLU Section - A
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher Mrs.Samreen Hussain for giving
me such a challenging topic and also for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant
encouragement throughout the course of this thesis.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college
for their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing
this task through various stages.

I am obliged to the staff members of the Madhu Limaye Library, for the timely and valuable
information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful for their cooperation
during the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement without
which this assignment would not have been possible.

Amit singh
Index

 Introduction
 Types of alienation
 Legal necessity as basis of alienation
 Case referred
 Conclusion
Introduction
The ownership in order to be complete needs the alienation of the property as a right. The alienation
hence is one of the basic incidents of ownership. A coparcenary is a subset of Joint Family, and
hence, all the coparceners have an equal right over the property among them. So no single coparcener
can acquire the power to alienate the whole joint family property, unless and until the co-owners
authorizes him to do so.

The position of Karta in a Joint Family is different from the other members of the family. He is
entrusted with the management of the joint family property. But this doesn’t mean that he owns the
property as a whole, but he also has an interest in it just like any other coparcener. With regards to
the alienation aspect, if all the members consent to sell the property then such a transfer would
absolutely be valid and will be binding on all the members, but if one of the members withholds his
consent to this transfer then ordinarily the property cannot be transferred. This can however lead to a
situation where such transfer is important for the benefit of the members but due to the absence of
consent, the alienation cannot take place and hence the failure on the part of the Karta regarding
maintenance of the members of the family.

So to avoid such a situation where actually because of the absence of consent of one of the
coparceners, the remaining members might face difficult situations, the ancient texts regarding the
Hindus have mentioned some situations where the alienation of the property can take place even
without the consent of the coparceners.

Situation in Dharmashastras
In Dharmashastra there are 3 ways to alienate the property:

 Apatkale
 Kutumbarthe
 Dharmarthe
Apatkale: It refers to a situation where the family as a whole or one of its members faces an
emergency, or with respect to its property. This nature of this transaction is meant for averting the
danger, or an attempt to avoid the calamity for which money has to be raised. When it refers to the
property, it indicates the transfer as being necessary for its protection, or conservation, and for which
immediate action is to be taken.

This is not a mere profitable transaction, but a transfer which if not effected may result in the loss to
the family, to this property, or any other property owned by the family.

Kutumbarthe: Kutumbarthe means “benefit of Kutumb,” kutumb meaning the family members. It,
therefore,  allowed as the proceeds of such transfer are utilized for the sustenance of the family
members, such as for providing for their needs of food, clothing, shelter, education, medical expenses
etc.

Dharmarthe :The term Dharmarthe means “for pious purposes” which is for the performance of
religious and charitable purposes.

With the evolution of time and due to the colonial influence and their attempt to codify the Hindu
laws, these terms were translated as a Legal necessity, Benefit of Estate, Religious and Charitable
Purposes, respectively.

Legal Necessity
Legal necessity means any necessity which can be sustained by law or is justified by law. This
concept has emerged as a combination of the Apatkale and Kutumbarthe. With respect to the joint
family, it means a necessity with respect to its members and also with respect to its property, which
can be justified in law.

The term “legal necessity” itself explains enough about the concept. The term “legal” here signifies
its justification in law, “necessity” signifies the existence of a situation, need or a purpose that
requires money and that the family does not have that kind of money or alternative resources, with
which that need can be satisfied.
Conditions which need to be fulfilled for validating a transaction under legal necessity are:-

1. Existence of need or purpose, i.e. a situation with respect to family members or its
property which requires money,
2. Such requirement is for a lawful purpose, i.e. it must not be for an immoral, illegal
purpose.
3. The family does not possess monetary or alternative resource which the requirement can
be met with, and
4. The course of action taken by the Karta is such as an ordinary prudent person will take
with respect to his property.

However while such alienation, the consideration for the sale of coparcenary property must not be
inadequate.

Benefit of Estate

This term has evolved with time and is not capable of precise definition. But if by the transfer of joint
family property or by its sale proceeds, their property or any other family estate is benefited, the
transaction would be for the benefit of the estate.

‘Benefit’ means an advantage, betterment or to profit, ‘Estate’ means landed property. Since here the
expression is used in connection with joint family property, ‘estate’ would mean joint family landed
property.

The term ‘benefit of estate’ to begin with covered cases purely of defensive nature, such as to protect
it from a threatened danger or destruction, but gradually also included alienations that an ordinary
prudent man would view as appropriate for the given set of situations.

The courts have not given a set definition of this concept, undoubtedly so that itc a n b e s u i t a b l y
m o d i fi e d a n d e x p a n d e d t o i n c l u d e e v e r y a c t w h i c h m i g h t b e n e fi t t h e family.In the
modern law the first exposition of the expression “for the benefit of theestate” was found in the case of 

  Palaniappa v.  Deivasikamony.1

1
(1917)44 IA 147;supra n. 3 p. 373
In this case the judges observed “ No indication is to be found in any of them(ancienttexts) as to what is,
in this connection, the precise nature of things to be included under the descriptions ‘benefit to the
estate The preservation however of the estate
fromextinction, the defence against hostile litigation affecting it, the protection of it or  portions from
injury or deterioration by inundations, there and such like things would obviously be benefits” The
Supreme Court later added its own observation as to what constitutes benefit, in the case of 

  Balmukund  v.  Kamla Wati.2

  for the transaction to be regarded as for the benefit of the family it need  not be of a defensive
character. Instead in each case the court must be  satisfied from the material before it, that it was in fact
conferred or wasexpected to confer benefit on family.

The below given illustrations will give an idea as to the cases where the courts have heldthe alienation
to be for benefit of the estate:-In

  Hari Singh v.Umrao Singh3

, w h e n a l a n d y i e l d i n g n o p r o fi t w a s s o l d a n d a l a n d yielding profit was purchased the

transaction was held to be for benefit.In

Gallamudi  v Indian Overseas Bank4

w h e n a a l i e n a ti o n w a s m a d e t o c a r r y o u t renovations in the hotel which was a family

business, it was held to be for benefit.

Defensive Transaction

This type of transaction has been illustrated in the case of Hanooman Prasad Pandey v Mussammat
Babooee5. In this case, Hanooman was in a business of providing loans. He entered into a loan
contract with Raja Singh. After taking a loan, he died leaving behind a minor son Lal Singh and his
wife, Mussammat. There was an order of Malgoozaree which stated that there can be confiscation of
property, so the wife entered into a transaction of the mortgage.

On attaining majority, Lal singh challenged the transaction on the grounds that:

2
AIR 1964 SC 1385
3
AIR 1979 All. 65.
4
AIR 1978 A.P. 37.
5
(1854-57) 6 M.I.A. 393,
 1. Mussammat was a pardanashee woman and, therefore, the transaction was a vitiated one.
2. The transaction was with specific reference to ancestral property, and hence, she cannot
deal with that kind of property and hence the transaction is void, and the appellant must
return the property.

The court for the first time used the term ‘benefit of estate’ but did not explain it properly. But it laid
down certain facts:

1. Mussammat was de facto guardian whose guardianship with respect to the property

matters are not in dispute, and the revenue is proof of that.
2. The transaction entered into was for avoiding the danger which was impending on the
shape of malgoozaree, which could have led to the confiscation of property.
3. Mussammat was very much capable of entering into a contract for the reason that she
didn’t enter into the unequal

Hence, the court concluded that the transaction entered into was validated in law as it was in the
nature of averting a danger to the ancestral property.

Prudent/Imprudent Transactions

This type of transactions has been discussed by the court in the case of Balmukund v Kamlavati6. In
this case, a Hindu joint family owned a small portion of a big plot owned by the alienee, who
approached the Karta for the purchase of the joint family land, and offered him a higher
consideration than the market value. Initially accepting this offer, the Karta accepted the earnest
money, but he later failed to execute the sale deed. The alienee, therefore, filed a suit for specific
performance of the contract, but the other coparceners objected to it on the grounds of invalidity.

Court held that the doctrine of ‘benefit of estate’ emerged from the doctrine of ‘defensive
transaction.’ However such transaction also requires a minimum degree of prudence on the part of
the Karta. The idea of ‘benefit of estate’ doesn’t fit in this case as the family was in affluent
circumstances and that there was no evidence to show that the Karta was finding it difficult to
manage this property.

6
1964 AIR 1385, 1964 SCR (6) 321
The courts have laid down some guidelines so as to check that validity of transaction under this
doctrine:

1. When the alienation is for defensive or protective purpose.

2. When it brings any sort of advantage or improvement to the family estate.
3. Where the Karta exercises his prudence suitable to family estate subject to:
4. The degree of prudence is higher than the level expected in the case of exclusive property.
5. How the sale proceeds are used; because it has to be used for the benefit of the family
property.

Indispensable Duties

This term implies the performance of those acts which are religious, pious or charitable. Examples of
indispensable duties are the obsequies of father, marriages, grihapravesham, it may also include
many rituals and religious duties like sradha, upanayana, and performance of necessary Sanskara.

There is a difference in the powers of Karta while alienating properties for indispensable duties and
gifts for charitable purposes. While discharging indispensable duties, the Karta has unlimited powers
in the sense that he can alienate the entire property for that purpose, whereas in the case of gifts for
charitable purposes, only a small portion of the property can be alienated.

The obligation to get the family members married would come under the purview of both legal
necessity as well as a pious obligation as it is considered as the most essential sanskara.

In Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri vs. Polavarapu

Veeracharlu[vii],
it was held that necessity should not be understood in the sense of what is absolutely
indispensable but what according to the notions of the joint Hindu family would be regarded as
proper and reasonable[viii]. Thus, Legal Necessity doesn’t mean actual compulsion; it means
pressure upon estate which may in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. If it is shown
that family’s need was for a particular thing and if property was alienated for the satisfaction of
that particular need, then it is enough proof that there was a legal necessity. The following have
been held to be family necessities.

 Maintenance of all the members of the Joint Hindu family, expenses for medical care for
the members.
 Payment of government revenue and government taxes and duties like income tax.
 Payment of debts incurred for family necessity or family business or decretal debts
 Performance of necessary ceremonies, sradhs and upanyana.
 Marriage expenses of male coparceners, and of the daughters of coparceners.
 Payment of debts incurred for family business or other necessary purpose.
 Costs incurred for the defense of the head of the joint family or any other member
involved in a serious criminal charge. 

DEV KISHAN VS RAM KISHAN (2002 RAJASTHAN 306)

Fact = Coparcenery consist of father and 3 minor children. Father executed mortgage and told he had
did for purpose of marriage of 3 children and sold property at 3 hundred Rs. This alienation was
challenged by mother.

HELD = Purpose is illegal and there is no alternative earning so allenation is improper and void.
Their is no such legal necessity

Conclusion
The position of Karta is such which has a duty to maintain all the members and to take care of their
needs and must act for their welfare. With such a duty, he needs to be entitled to some rights by
which he can fulfill the duties he is expected to. The right to alienate is one such right given to him
by the law so as to fulfill the duties of his office. However, there are certain loopholes which are
present and needs to overcome by passing the requisite legislations.

The burden of proof of the alienee to prove that he took sufficient care to ascertain whether there was
actual need should be lifted, instead in cases of invalid alienation it should be demanded of the
transferor to prove that there was an actual condition which demanded instant redress. This should be
so because the alienee being an outsider is not in a favorable position to ascertain it and such an
obligation imposed on these transactions would make lenders unwilling to deal in joint property
which would in turn adversely affect the rights of joint family members.

Another such loophole is the law according to which the purchaser loses all his interest in the joint
property along with all the chance of getting back the purchasing amount is grossly unjust. It should
be noted that the courts in their haste to safeguard the interest of the non-alienating coparceners,
forget the interest of the innocent purchaser who has made a bona fide deal. Hence sufficient
recourses should be made for this.

The concept of alienation has come a long journey, and the courts have also played a very important
role in its development still the flaws are present in the present situation, and they also need to
overcome, and hence to make much favorable laws keeping in mind the interests of all the
individuals concerned.

Bibliography
Books
 Prof kusum
 Kesari
 Paras diwan
 https://www.law.umich.edu/journalsandorgs/Pages/Family

LawProject.aspx
 https://www.scribd.com/doc/89964098/Family-Law-Project