Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
N.S. Balaji – Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal and Others – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21476-21477 of 2023
Decided On : 03-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property as joint family/huf property. (Para 1) |
| 2. karta's rights in huf property management. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court dismisses the special leave petitions. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER :
1. In the present case, the petitioner claims that the property in question was a joint family property/Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, which was mortgaged by the petitioner’s father as one of the guarantors. The petitioner also states that his father was the Karta of the HUF.
2. The position on the rights of a Karta vis-a-vis an HUF property is well settled. This Court in Sri Narayan Bal vs. Sridhar Sutar , (1996) 8 SCC 54 has held that the Karta has the right to sell/dispose of/alienate an HUF property, even if a minor of the family has undivided interest. The reason is that an HUF is capable of acting through its Karta or an adult member of the family in the management of the HUF property.
3. Thus, the father of the petitioner herein, as the Karta of the HUF, was entitled to mortgage the HUF property. The sons or other members of the HUF need not be consenting parties to the mortgage. Post alienation, a coparcener may challenge the act of a Karta, if the alienation is not for legal necessity or for betterment of the estate, which is not the assertion established in the present case.
4. In light of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
The Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family has the right to mortgage family property without requiring consent from other members, valid unless challenged on legal necessity or betterment grounds.
(1) Karta may alienate joint family property for value, either for legal necessity or for benefit of estate, to bind interests of all undivided members of family, whether they are adults or minors or....
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act does not apply to properties owned by Hindu Undivided Families.
(1) Exercise of powers given rights of Karta on fulfilling requirement of legal necessity or betterment of estate is valid and binding on other coparceners – Agreement to sell cannot be set aside on ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a sale deed executed by the family manager, the entitlement of daughters to ancestral property under the Amended Hindu Succes....
Agreement of sale post-partition binds only signatories' shares; lacks Karta recital or legal necessity, does not bind non-signatory coparceners' independent shares.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
