DASTAGIRSAB versus SHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA POLICE PATIL (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1053 · Decided: 16-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1053 : 2025 INSC 1120
Dastagirsab 
v. 
Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) 
by LRs. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5340 of 2017)
16 September 2025
[Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the suit land was sold to 5th defendant by 1st defendant-
Karta for legal necessity i.e. the marriage of his daughter ‘K’.
Headnotes†
Hindu Law – Sale of the suit land (belonging to the HUF) by 
1st defendant-Karta to 5th defendant, if was for legal necessity 
i.e. the marriage of daughter ‘K’ – Suit filed by plaintiff-
coparcener (one of the sons of 1st defendant) assailing the 
sale transaction, was dismissed by Trial Court holding that 
the suit land was sold to meet the expenses of the marriage 
of ‘K’, that is, due to legal necessity – Order reversed by High 
Court holding that the sale of the suit land for ‘K’s’ marriage 
was improbable as the marriage had already taken place prior 
to the sale in question – Interference with:
Held: 1.1 Right of a Karta to sell joint family property is well 
settled – Karta enjoys wide discretion with regard to existence of 
legal necessity and in what way such necessity can be fulfilled – 
Whether legal necessity existed justifying the sale would depend 
on facts of each case. [Para 11]
1.2 It is true K’s marriage had taken place in 1991, couple of years 
prior to the 1st defendant 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 – Expenses borne by the coparceners in respect of K’s 
marriage created financial stress on the family leading to the sale 
of the suit land. [Para 15]
* Author
1054
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1.3 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 ‘K’. [Para 15]
1.4 High Court erroneously found that 5th defendant’s case for sale 
on the ground of legal necessity for marriage was not proved – 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. [Paras 15, 19]
1.5 Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court, set aside – 
Judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit, upheld. [Para 19]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Suit land belonging to the HUF 
was sold by 1st defendant-Karta to 5th defendant-purchaser 
for legal necessity of the marriage of daughter ‘K’ – High Court 
held that the sale in favour of 5th defendant was not for legal 
necessity and he was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable 
consideration as he had not made enquiries regarding the 
source of title or the manner in which the sale consideration 
was distributed among coparceners, hence was not a bona 
fide purchaser:
Held: 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/
purchaser – The 5th defendant, through deft cross examination of 
the plaintiff and other evidence, established a clear nexus between 
the sale transaction and the expenses undertaken for K’s marriage 
and thus, discharged the onus – In these circumstances, his case 
cannot be disbelieved on the ground 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 s.106 and saddle him with the 
liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of 
the coparceners of the HUF – Moreover, on facts, 5th defendant 
could not have doubted the right of the 1st defendant to effect 
the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary 
prudence to purchase the suit land – High Court erroneously found 
that 5th defendant’s case for sale on the ground of legal necessity 
for marriage was not proved. [Paras 16, 17]
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 
1055
Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) 
by LRs. & Ors.
Case Law Cited
Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 
SCC 263 – relied on.
Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath [1971] 2 SCR 603 : (1970) 3 SCC 
722 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Hind

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.