Can a Karta sell joint family property to one relative? Here’s what the law allows

On February 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India upheld the judgement of Madras High Court, which stated that alienations (partitions or transfers) in favour of one co-parcener cannot bind others unless there is a real necessity.

This remark from the high court came in a case where a father, acting as Karta, sold multiple parcels of joint family property to one of his two sons, while the other son challenged the transactions due to lack of legal necessity and sufficient consideration.

HUF Karta must prove legal necessity to alienate other members of the family from the property

According to Hindu law, a co-parcener has claim over Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property by birth and is a member of the that HUF. A co-parcener has legal right to seek partition of the joint family property.

Vishal Gehrana, Advocate on Record at Supreme Court of India associated with Karanjawala & Co., said that the high court’s observation that “alienations in favour of one co-parcener could not bind the others in the absence of genuine necessity”, flows from the orthodox Mitakshara school of a Hindu Undivided Family and the limited powers of a Karta.

Gehrana says: “In terms thereof, the Karta is a manager and custodian of the joint estate (property), not its absolute owner. His power of alienating a member of the family from the joint family property is therefore restricted and may be exercised only for legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate (property), or for the discharge of indispensable duties.”

Gehrana says the Madras High Court emphasizes that such legal necessity for alienating other family members from the joint property must be strictly proved and that vague or general recitals in sale deeds are not enough to bind non-consenting co-parceners.

Also read: Karta’s property not treated as HUF asset if he can prove it was acquired from personal income without use of ancestral assets

Gehrana says that Hindu law imposes a dual requirement in this regard.

• Firstly, the necessity must be genuine and confined to recognised reasons such as pressing family debts, medical treatment, essential maintenance, marriages of dependents, prevention of deterioration of the estate, or transactions clearly beneficial to the estate.
• Secondly, where the alienation is challenged, the burden lies on the alienee to establish either actual necessity or that he made bona fide and reasonable enquiries and acted prudently on the information obtained.

Gehrana says that these principles apply with greater rigour where the alienation is in favour of one co-parcener.

Gehrana says: “A sale by the Karta to a son is inherently vulnerable to self-dealing or colourable arrangements and therefore warrants enhanced scrutiny.”

Also read: HUF land dispute reaches Supreme Court: One brother gets 5/16th share, other retains self-acquired properties

In that Supreme Court case where they upheld Madras High Court’s judgement, the court only approved an item-wise examination of the transactions, upholding only those property alienations supported by evidence of necessity and refusing to bind the challenging c-oparcener where such proof was lacking.

The court thus reiterates that, in the absence of genuine necessity, an alienation in favour of one co-parcener cannot bind the interests of the others.