India: Karta's Power To Alienate Minor's Property: Prevailing Limitations

I. Introduction:

A Karta being the head of a Hindu joint family, exercises wide powers in managing the affairs of the joint family. As such, the powers of Karta include the power to manage, maintain and alienate the joint family property, and the right to represent coparceners in any legal matter. As the manager and head of a Hindu joint family, a Karta is even entitled to alienate any undivided share of the coparceners in the joint family property including the property of minor coparceners without the prior permission of the court¹. According to Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 ("the Act"), "where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family property and the property is under the management of an adult member of the family, no guardian shall be appointed in case of a minor's undivided share in the coparcenary property²". However, the said right of the Karta to alienate the undivided share of the minor coparceners is not unbridled, and the current article focuses on the limitations prevalent therein.

II. Power to Alienate Undivided Share of a Minor - Prevalent Limitations

The Karta has the power to alienate undivided share of a minor's property if there exists a legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate³. The term 'legal necessity' has a very wide connotation. It does not connote to an event or action that is imperative or indispensable, rather, it connotes to an event or action that is necessary for the maintenance or management of the joint family property. Further, benefit of the estate does not connote something that is defensive in character⁴. The court exercises the power to analyze the material available before the court and ascertain whether the alienation is reasonable and just to confer benefit on the estate⁵.

As a matter of general principle, alienation carried out by the Karta shall bind the interests of all the coparceners as he has the discretion to ascertain whether a legal necessity and benefit of estate exists⁶. In many instances the courts in India have approved the alienation of a minor's share in the property in case of legal necessities, including repayment of family debts, clearing arrears of income tax⁷, funeral expenses of a family member⁸ and meeting indispensable religious and pious duties, etc. Few of the instances where the courts have upheld the validity of the alienation of the minor's property on the ground of benefit of estate include, creating a charge on the property to carry out improvements and renovation to the building⁹, sale of a property which did not procure any profits, to purchase another property at a much cheaper rate and to procure more profits¹⁰ etc.

III. Burden of Proof:

Coparceners in a Hindu joint family cannot seek injunction against the Karta restraining him from alienating the coparcenary property¹¹. However, the coparceners can challenge the alienation made by Karta on the ground of non-existence of legal necessity or benefit of estate¹². Further, a minor coparcener can also file a suit challenging the alienation made by the Karta within three years after the minor coparcener attains majority¹³. If the Karta alienates the undivided share of the minor without the legal necessity or benefit of the estate, the transaction becomes voidable to the extent of the aggrieved coparcener¹⁴.

The onus of proving legal necessity or benefit of estate or that a diligent enquiry was conducted to ascertain the existence of the same, is on the purchaser of the joint family property¹⁵. If the existence is established, then no coparcener has any right to challenge the alienation carried out by their Karta¹⁶. However, the purchaser is absolved of this burden of proof if the aggrieved coparcener does not plead the absence of legal necessity or benefit of the estate in the alienation carried through by their Karta¹⁷.

IV. Conclusion:

As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, although the coparceners enjoy a right to joint possession and enjoyment of their joint family property by virtue of their birth, they are not entitled to the exclusive and absolute possession of the same. A Karta being in a fiduciary position to that of the coparceners in the joint family, exercises a wide set of powers in dealing / maintaining / alienating the joint family property. The concepts of legal necessity and benefit of the estate act as a check and balance system in preventing the abuse of power by the Karta. Thus, ensuring and maintaining a sound counterbalance between the powers of the Karta and rights of the coparceners.

Footnotes

1. Sri Narayan Bal and others vs Sridhar Sutar and others, (1996) 8 SCC 54

2. Section 12 of the Act

3. Subramaniam vs Krishnaswami, AIR 1972 Mad 377

4.Balmukund vs Kamla Wati, AIR 1964 SC 1385

5. Balmukund vs Kamla Wati, AIR 1964 SC 1385

6. Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs V Manjunath and others, AIR 2022 SC 65

7. Mukesh Kumar vs Harbans Waraiah, AIR 2002 SC 172

8. Nathuram vs Shoma Chhagan (1890) 14 Bom 562

9. Gollamudi Siva Kumari vs Indian Overseas Bank, AIR 1978 AP 37

10. Hari Singh and another vs Umrao Singh and another, AIR 1979 All 65

11. Sushil Kumar and Another vs Ram Prakash and others, AIR 1988 SC 576

12. Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs V Manjunath and others, AIR 2022 SC 65; Sushil Kumar and Another vs Ram Prakash and others, AIR 1988 SC 576

13. Rangahanumaiah through LRs and others vs Devaraju and others, Regular Second Appeal 209 of 2007

14. Subodhkumar vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre, AIR 2007 SC 1324

15. Pandurang Mahadeo Kavade vs Annaji Balwant Bokil, (1971) 3 SCC 530, Ningegowda and others

vs K B Doddegowda and others, AIR 1986 KAR 90

16. Kehar Singh (D) through LRs and others vs Nachittar Kaur and others, (2018) 14 SCC 445

17. Pandurang Mahadeo Kavade vs Annaji Balwant Bokil, (1971) 3 SCC 530

The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at legalalerts@khaitanco.com