svardhimaan@gmailcom Search for Articles Q CONTRIBUTOR ee M Mulla Associates ARTICLE India: A Karta Has A Right To Alienate Joint Hindu Family Property For Legal Necessity And Is Binding On Other Coparceners by Manec Mulls ane Hareb thagan) ‘Your Linkedin Connections wth he authors INTRODUCTION: The Apex Court in a recent decision in Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy Vs V. Manjunath and Another! lbserved thatthe right of akarta to execute an agreement to sell or sale deed of ajoint hindu family property {s settled and is beyond cov Facts: ‘on 8 December, 2006, K Veluswary (Respondent No. 2°) asa Karta ofa joint hindu family, executed an ‘agreement to sell certain agricukural lands ("the Suit Property") collectively fr Rs. 29 lakhs ("sald [Agreement") and had received Rs. 4 lakhs as advances from one Seereddy Dasaratharami Reddy ("the Appellant”, ‘0n 26" November, 2007, the Appellant instituted a sult for speciic performance ofthe said Agreement by impleading both, V. Manjunath, son of Respondent No.2 ("Respondent No. 1") and the Respondent No, 2 (colleevely referred to 35 “the Respondents (on 22"4january, 2013, the Court of Senior Ci Judge Hirtyur, decreed the sul by rejecting the defense that the said Agreement was camouflaged as aloan agreement and thatthe Respondent No.2 was in need of ‘money for construction of a farm house. The Respondent No. 2353 Ksrta of hein hindu family property ‘was ented to execute an agreement to salon account of egal necessity and thatthe sald Agreement was vai, ‘The Respondent No.1, preferred an appeal against the order dated 22" January, 2013, before the High Court ‘of Karnataka at Bengaluru Vide judgment dated 6” March, 2021, ‘impugned judgment’) it was observed that while the Respondent No. 2 led execute the said Agreement for sale of the Sult Property for Rs. 29 lakhs and had received RS. 4 lakhs as ‘advances, twas held tha the said Agreement was unenforceable asthe Sul Property belonged to the int hindu family consisting of three persons, the Respondent No, 2, his wif V. Manimegala and the Respondent No. 1, and therefore, the said Agreement could not have been executed without the signature of the Respondent No. Being agarieved bythe impugned order, the Appellant approached the Apex Cour. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: ‘The main issue for consideration inter aia before the Hon'ble Court was: Whether a Karta has legal authority to execute an agreement to selljaint hindu family property? JUDGMENT:‘The Apex Court observed that the sald Agreement was an admitted document and was signed and executed by the Respondent No.2 and his wife V. Manimegala. The receipt of RS. lakhs as advances, by the Respondent No.2 was also notin dispute. The balance amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was to be pad within three months and the sale eed was to be executed and registered ‘The Apex Court further observed that the said Agreement recorded that the Sut Property was a joint hindu ‘amily propery and was enjayed jirly Furter, that Ie as significant and important to note the avowal by ‘the executants tothe sald Agreement that they were in need of funds to meet domestic necessities and, consequerily, had agreed to sell the Sut Property ‘The Apex Court observed that although the saié Agreement was also to be executed by the Respondent No, 1 and that twas in fact not signed or executed by the Respondent No. 1 this, would not nullify the rights ane lables arising from the agreement to sell. was further observed thatthe right ofthe Karta to execute the sald Agreement or sale deed ofa joint hindu family propery is setled and is beyond call, ‘The Apex Court relied upon several judgments, one of them being Sri Narayan Bal and Others. Sridhar Sutar and Others Others#, wherein it was held thata Joint hindu family was capable of acting through its Karta or an adult member af the family In management ofthe jolt hindu family property. A coparcener who haa right to claim a share in the joint hindu family estate could not seek an injunction against the Kata, restraining him from dealing with or entering ito a vansaction forsale ofthe joint hindu family property, albeit pst alienation had a right to challenge the alienation ifthe sarme was nat for legal necessity or fer betterment of the estate Sri Narayan Bal (supra) goes on to state that where a Karla alenated a joint hindu family property for value ‘ther for legal necessity or benefit ofthe estate it would bind the interest ofall undivided members ofthe {amily even when they were miners or widows. ‘The Apex Court inter ala held thatthe signatures ofthe Respondent No, 1, were not required in the sald Agreement ‘The Apex Court further held thatthe Respondent No, 2, being the Karta was entitled to execute the sald ‘Agreement and alienate the Suit Property. The absence of signatures of the Respondent No, 1 would not have mattered and was inconsequential. Footnotes 1-cAgpeatNe, 707 of 2028 2.211096 8s¢c54 The content ofthis article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specie icumstances. AUTHORS) aneecuta [Pew Harsh Marsh hada ei Taudanlc Pp osu Mondaa =, leMow Harsh Mondans POTEEREE hadan) stout | flag | ContactUs | Conon | fssbark | fees Ales | TACs | susie | ery Sateen