Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
12. Plaintiff-coparcener has assailed the sale transaction undertaken by 1st defendant-Karta on the ground it was not made for legal necessity but to meet his expensive and wasteful habits. Evidence has come on record 1st defendant-Karta had previously sold various properties of the HUF. Though it is the plaintiff’s case that such sales were not for legal necessities, he has not challenged any of these transactions. To justify his present claim, the plaintiff asserts the 1st defendant assured him money derived from such sales would be settled in favour of the sons including the plaintiff and that no other properties would be sold. It is further the plaintiff’s case, no money was settled in his favour or that of the 2nd defendant but substantial sums were settled in favour of 3rd and 4th defendant. Though the plaintiff alleges 1st defendant acted in a biased and unfair manner, admittedly the plaintiff has not taken any steps for recovery of such outstanding dues earlier or even in the present suit.
13. In view of such conduct, the Trial Court rightly inferred the earlier sale transactions of HUF properties were for financial needs and the plea that the previous HUF assets were disposed of to meet the Karta’s extravagant habits was an afterthought.
14. With regard to the sale of the suit land to 5th defendant, the Trial Court noted that during cross-examination the plaintiff admitted his father had informed him that the property had been sold to meet family needs. High Court completely glossed over this fact and reversed the finding on a specious logic that the sale of the suit land for Kashibai’s marriage was improbable as the marriage had already taken place prior to the sale in question. 1062
15. It is true Kashibai’s marriage had taken place in 1991, couple of years prior to the 1st defendant-Karta entering into sale of the suit property for valuable consideration. It is common knowledge families incur heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters and such debts have a cascading effect on family finances down the years. Apart from the 1st defendant-Karta disclosing to the plaintiff such sale was to meet family needs, the money receipts for the sale consideration were signed by two of the coparceners, as well as the 1st defendant’s wife and daughter Kashibai, whose marriage expenses are stated to be the reason for the sale. These circumstances demonstrate expenses borne by the coparceners in respect of Kashibai’s marriage created financial stress on the family leading to the sale of the suit land. High Court overlooked these facts and came to an erroneous finding that 5th defendant’s case for sale on the ground of legal necessity for marriage is not proved.
16. High Court held as 5th defendant had not made enquiries regarding the source of title or the manner in which the sale consideration was distributed among coparceners, hence he cannot be held to be a bona fide purchaser. We are conscious that the onus to prove that a sale made by the Karta on behalf of other coparceners of HUF for legal necessity lies on the alienee/purchaser11. The 5th defendant-purchaser, through deft cross examination of the plaintiff and other evidence, has established a clear nexus between the sale transaction and the expenses undertaken for Kashibai’s marriage and has thereby discharged the onus. In these circumstances, his case cannot be disbelieved on the score that all the coparceners had not received the sale consideration. This fact is in the special knowledge of the plaintiff and other coparceners. Onus of proof on the stranger-purchaser cannot run counter to the principle of reverse burden enshrined in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and saddle him with the liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of the coparceners of the HUF.
17. The suit land stood in the name of 1st defendant-Karta. Relying on such land entries, 5th defendant purchased the land for valuable consideration. The money receipts were executed by some of the coparceners namely, defendant nos. 3 and 4 as well as Kashibai. See Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722 (paras 10-11). [2025] 9 S.C.R. Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors. Given these facts, we are inclined to hold 5th defendant-purchaser could not have doubted the right of the 1st defendant-karta to effect the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary prudence to purchase the suit land.
18. On the contrary, conduct of the plaintiff in belatedly challenging the sale transaction after five years in the year 2000 raises grave doubt regarding his bona fides. Plaintiff sought to justify the delay by contending he was unaware of the sale since possession of the suit land was not parted with. Such explanation is wholly facetious as ample evidence in the form of mutation certificate, land record entries standing in the name of 5th defendant have come on record establishing his continued possession of the suit land. High Court not only ignored these facts improbabilising the plaintiff’s case but made up a third case that the plaintiff was working for gain elsewhere and could not have been aware of the sale transaction. No such case was either pleaded or probabilised by the plaintiff during trial.
19. In fine, we are of the view the High Court erred in holding the sale in favour of 5th defendant was not for legal necessity and the latter was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. As such, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and uphold the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit. The appeal is allowed. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey