Family members can reject sale of joint HUF land and treat it as void if Karta sells it solely for personal benefit; Key legal rules you must know

A while back, there was a case in the Supreme Court where the head of a family was accused of using money from their ancestral lands to buy more land and selling some of it to his younger son. As the other brothers grew up, they protested this decision and eventually won the case partly. The Supreme Court ruled that some of the land sales were invalid as they were joint property acquired from the family's joint income, while some lands were rightfully given to the younger son since his father bought them with his own money.

The Supreme Court said that “alienations in favour of one coparcener could not bind the others in the absence of genuine necessity.” This means that if one family member tries to manage shared ancestral property for their own benefit;

• The other family members are not forced to accept it
• They can challenge it in court
• Unless the transaction was done for a valid reason that benefits or protects the family as a whole

Vishal Gehrana, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India, associated with Karanjawala & Co. said that the court’s observation flows from the orthodox Mitakshara school of a Hindu Undivided Family and the limited powers of a Karta (head of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).


Gehrana points out that Karta is a manager and custodian of the joint estate, not its absolute owner. His power of alienation or right to sell the property is limited and can only be done for legal necessities, to benefit the estate, or to discharge essential duties.

Paragraph 33 of the Judgment emphasizes that this necessity has to be clearly demonstrated, and vague or broad statements in sale deeds are insufficient to bind non-consenting coparceners.

Also read: Once father’s property is proved as joint property, married Hindu daughters can claim a right in it and demand partition, rules Karnataka High Court

Keep reading to know more about what the Hindu succession law says about this.

Hindu law has a dual requirement for selling joint family ancestral property

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

• Firstly, the need to sell joint family property must be genuine and restricted 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, when the alienation is challenged, the burden lies on the alienee (the person who is cut from the property i.e. elder brothers in this case) to establish either actual necessity or ensure that he made bona fide and reasonable enquiries and acted prudently on the information obtained.

Gehrana says the Hindu principles apply with greater rigour in cases where the alienation is in favour of one coparcener, like it allegedly happened in this case. The father sold joint family lands to the younger son, thus alienating (cutting off) the elder sons).

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

Sale of joint family property to only one son can make the deal vulnerable especially if other sons object

In this case, there were more than 70 parcels of land and not all of them were bought by the father (head of the family in this case) using his own funds. The court examined the deals and purchase records and other evidence and separated the lands bought with his own funds from joint lands.

In the present case, the court approved an item-wise examination of the transactions, upholding only those alienations supported by evidence of necessity and refusing to bind the challenging coparcener where such proof was lacking.

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

Saroj Jha, Senior Partner, Saraf and Partners, said to ET Wealth Online that if income is used from income generating ancestral property to acquire other property or assets, it should benefit all legal heirs.

According to Jha, in cases where the ownership of any property is part funded from income generating ancestral property and partly by any person, then to the extent of the contribution from income generating ancestral property shall be for the benefit of all legal heirs.