Karnataka HC Upholds Father’s Sale Of Joint-Family Plot To Redeem Mortgage, Rejects Children’s Claim To A Share In It

The plaintiffs, children of defendant No. 1, sued for partition of six properties, claiming that a registered sale deed dated 1 July 1999 by their father in favour of defendant No. 2, covering item No. 1, was sham and not binding on their shares.

Defendant No. 2 maintained that the property was sold for family necessity, including to discharge a mortgage over other family property.

The Trial Court dismissed the claim concerning item No. 1 but decreed shares in items No. 2–6; the First Appellate Court affirmed.

The plaintiffs’ second appeal challenged only the finding concerning item No. 1.

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal lies on a substantial question of law.

Under Hindu joint-family law, a karta may alienate joint-family property for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate; the purchaser bears the burden of establishing that justification.

The judgment applied these principles to the sale by defendant No. 1 as karta and manager of the family.

The High Court found that the courts below had assessed the evidence and reached supported findings that the plaintiffs had not proved fraud or that the sale was nominal, while defendant No. 2 had established the family necessity for the transaction.

The sale deed recited that the proceeds were required to release other joint-family property from mortgage; evidence also supported the conclusion that defendant No. 1 managed the family and that defendant No. 2 obtained possession.

The High Court therefore found no perversity in the concurrent findings warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

The second appeal was dismissed, leaving undisturbed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim to item No. 1 and the decree concerning items No. 2–6.