[Shankarlal Ramprasad Ladha (deceased by L.Rs.) v.
Vasnat Chandidasrao Deshmukh & Ors., AIR 2009 (NOC) 2367 (Bom.)]
The ancestral agricultural properties were kept undivided.
The respondent No. 4 was the karta of the family as he was the eldest male
member. He used to manage affairs of the joint family including cultivation of
the family lands. He was required to maintain himself and the other members of
the joint Hindu family. It was subsequently learnt that the Karta alienated
the suit houses.
The issue arose as to whether there was existence of legal
necessity for alienation of the suit house.
Concept of legal necessity as illustrated under Article 243
of the Hindu Law [By Mulla — 20th Edition (Vol. I) page 371]. It is well
settled that ‘legal necessity’ does imply pressure on the resources of the
joint Hindu family. So, if it is proved that there was considerable strain on
financial resources of the joint Hindu family at the relevant time, then the
sale transaction may be justified. The alienation by Manager of the joint
Hindu family may be permissible if it is for the benefit of the estate.
Article 244 of the Hindu Law (By Mulla) would make it manifest that purchaser
of the joint Hindu family property is under obligation to discharge burden of
proof to prove existence of the legal necessity or that his having made proper
and bonafide inquiry as to the existence of such necessity.
The Karta alienated the suit properties for improvement of
the lands, for maintenance of himself and education of the minors and for
meeting out his own marriage expenditure. It had come on record that in the
proximity of time of the sale deed, the karta got married.
It is explicit in view of Article 243(c) of the Hindu Law
(By Mulla) that marriage expenses of male coparceners can be regarded as
incidents of legal necessity. The marriage expenditure required for the
purpose of marriage of the Karta appears to be the reason for which the house
property was alienated by him.
The house property was sold by the Karta on account of
legal necessity, namely, to meet out expenditure of his own marriage. However,
the sale transaction of the other house property is not proved to be for the
purpose of legal necessity nor it could be for the benefit of the estate of
the joint family. Which is therefore held to be not on account of legal
necessity.
In the result, the appeal was partly allowed.
