1. Suit for partition of ancestral joint family property — Alienation by karta — Family necessity defense by purchaser. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
Smt. Uma Rajashekhar W/o K.Rajashekhar - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Sarojamma W/o Nagaraju - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 155 Of 2013 (PAR)
Decided On : 20-07-2026
1. Suit for partition of ancestral joint family property — Alienation by karta — Family necessity defense by purchaser. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
2. Karta can sell for family necessity binding coparceners — Suit for partial partition not maintainable — Collusive suit. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Sale deed recital of family necessity not rebutted — Suit for partial partition excluding other joint family properties not maintainable. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 38 )
4. A suit for partition of only alienated joint family property without including all properties is not maintainable. (Para 33 , 34 )
5. Regular second appeal allowed. Trial court judgment restored. First appellate court judgment set aside. (Para 39 )
No, a suit for partial partition seeking partition of only the alienated item is not maintainable when other joint family properties exist. (Para 33 , 34 )
Yes, a karta can alienate coparcenary property for legal necessity or benefit of family, binding all coparceners, including minors. (Para 31 , 32 )
The recital raises a presumption of family necessity; the party challenging the alienation must lead cogent evidence to rebut it. (Para 31 , 32 )
Alienations made before 20.12.2004 may be saved under the proviso; the date of execution, not registration, is relevant. (Para 36 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2012 passed in R.A.No.158/2011 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysore.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.6 and respondents No.1 and 2 were plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and other respondents were defendants No.1 to 5.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession alleging that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. It is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. Defendant No.1 is the karta of the family, as such, the khata of the suit property stands in the name of defendant No.1. But, defendants No.1 to 5 colluded with each other and with an intention to cause loss to the plaintiffs and without any legal necessity, sold the property in favour of defendant No.6 for a nominal price under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2005. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 5 have no exclusive right to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant No.6. The sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 are the members of the Hindu Undivided Family and no partition was effected between them. The plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession, but defendant No.1 refused the effect partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.
5. Defendants No.1 to 5 have appeared through the counsel, but did not file the written statement.
6. Defendant No.6 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Defendant No.1 being a karta of the family sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 for valid consideration and the said sale is for family and legal necessity. It is contended that the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiffs under the guise of partition, are praying to seek cancellation of sale deed which is not permissible. It is admitted regarding exchange of legal notices under reply. It is contended that there is no cause of action to file a suit for partition and separate possession. The cause of action shown in the plaint are false and imaginary and prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.6.
7. The trial Court based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues.
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that Genealogy as pleaded is true and correct?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 as pleaded?
3) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that defendants No.1 to 5 have sold the suit property without family necessity and not for the benefit of the joint family?
4) Whether the defendant proves that suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid thereon is incorrect?
5) Whether defendant No.6 prove that he is bonafide purchaser for valid consideration without notice?
6) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief as claimed?
7) What order or decree?
8. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. In rebuttal, defendant No.6 was examined as DW.1 and marked 7 documents as Ex.D1 to D7.
9. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and assessing verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues No.1 and 5 in the affirm
AI
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