HUF — Joint Hindu family property — Minor had an undivided share — Karta sold the property — Legal necessity — Permission from Court not required — Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, sections 6 and 12.

The plaintiffs, represented through their guardian maternal grandmother, filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession declaration and mesne profits against the defendants. The 1st defendant the father of the plaintiffs, had sold the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 5-9-2009 for legal necessities. The matter was contested by the 2nd defendant purchaser. However, the 1st defendant father of the plaintiffs did not contest the matter. The Trial Court referring to the Amended Act, 2005 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had allowed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. As against which, the 2nd defendant who was the purchaser of one of the items of the joint family property, filed appeal before the High Court on various grounds.

The Court observed that the suit property, which came to the share of the 1st defendant (father), was sold by him in favour of the 2nd defendant. It was specifically mentioned in the recitals of the sale deed that the sale was made in order to repay the loan borrowed from the Tobacco Board and the State Bank of Mysore, Abburu Branch.

The clearance of the debt was also an obligation on the part of the joint family when it was incurred towards legal necessities i.e., for the development of the joint family. In such a situation, the 1st defendant had disposed of the property.

The Court further observed that the Apex Court in the case of Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2371, wherein it is clearly held that the joint Hindu family property in which minor had an undivided share is sold/disposed of by Karta, as per section 8, previous permission of the Court before disposing of immovable property is not required. Further, it is held that the joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property. Thus, sections 6 and 12 excludes the applicability of section 8 insofar as joint Hindu family property is concerned.

Thus it was clear that the property in question was a joint Hindu family property, it may not be necessary for the 1st defendant to seek prior permission of the Court before alienating the suit property.