Case Commentary on Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa (D) by LRs. & Ors., 2025 INSC 1120 (Supreme Court of India, 16 September 2025)

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi, J. (author); Sandeep Mehta, J.

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of India’s decision in Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa (D) by LRs. & Ors., a significant pronouncement in Hindu joint family law dealing with a Karta’s power to alienate coparcenary property, the scope of “legal necessity,” and—importantly—the calibration of the purchaser’s burden of proof with the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The dispute revolves around a sale of joint family land by the Karta (the father) to the appellant-purchaser (the 5th defendant). A coparcener-son (plaintiff) challenged the sale as being without legal necessity and alleged it was motivated by the Karta’s wasteful habits. The Trial Court upheld the sale as one necessitated by the marriage expenses of the Karta’s daughter, but the High Court reversed, faulting the purchaser for not conducting due inquiry and doubting the plea of marriage necessity since the marriage had occurred earlier. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decree, articulating two core principles:

• Marriage expenses (and the debts they create) can constitute a continuing “legal necessity,” even if the sale is executed after the marriage, provided there is a reasonable nexus.
• The alienee’s onus to prove legal necessity is aligned with Section 106 of the Evidence Act—he need not prove facts peculiarly within the coparceners’ special knowledge (such as the internal distribution of consideration), and may discharge his burden through prudent inquiry, admissions, and circumstantial evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Karnataka High Court’s decree for partition, and reinstated the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit. The Court held:

• The suit land belonged to an HUF; the father, as Karta, had sold it to meet family necessities linked to the daughter Kashibai’s marriage expenses.
• Evidence such as the plaintiff’s admission that his father informed him of sale for family needs, money receipts signed by the Karta’s wife, daughter, and two coparceners, and revenue/mutation entries showing the purchaser’s possession collectively established a nexus to legal necessity.
• The High Court erred by overlooking this evidence and by imposing an unduly onerous duty on the purchaser to prove matters within the special knowledge of coparceners, contrary to Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
• The purchaser acted with ordinary prudence; he could rely on title entries in the Karta’s name and the family members’ signatures supporting the transaction.
• The plaintiff’s belated suit (nearly five years post-sale) and failure to challenge prior Karta sales undermined his bona fides.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff (a coparcener-son) alleged that his father (the 1st defendant, Karta) had a history of dissipating HUF assets to fund his vices. He claimed the Karta had promised not to sell the suit land and to make deposits for the sons, while settling larger sums in favor of two sons. Contrary to such assurances, the Karta sold the suit land on 26.07.1995 to the appellant (5th defendant). The plaintiff claimed lack of knowledge until 1999 and sought a declaration that the sale was void, with partition and separate possession.

The purchaser argued he had agreed to purchase for valuable consideration; an earlier agreement dated 18.06.1994 recorded an advance of ₹1,00,000 and carried signatures of the Karta’s wife, daughter, and a coparcener-son. He maintained the sale was for legal necessity—marriage expenses of Kashibai—and that possession and mutation entries reflected his ownership.

The Trial Court found legal necessity (marriage expenses) and dismissed the suit. The High Court reversed, holding the purchaser had not made adequate inquiry and questioning the marriage-necessity since the marriage predated the sale. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court decree.

Issues

• Whether the Karta’s sale of the HUF land to the purchaser was supported by legal necessity related to the daughter’s marriage.
• What is the extent of the alienee’s burden to prove legal necessity, and how does Section 106 Evidence Act shape that burden?
• Whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value acting with ordinary prudence.

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath & Anr., (2021) 19 SCC 263:

  Reaffirmed the Karta’s wide discretion to alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate; such alienation binds all coparceners. It underscored that what constitutes legal necessity depends on facts, and a coparcener cannot injunct the Karta prospectively but can challenge post-alienation if necessity is absent.

  Beereddy also references Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar, (1996) 8 SCC 54, confirming that a joint family can act through its Karta.

• Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur, (2018) 14 SCC 445:

  Quoted Mulla’s Hindu Law on (i) the father’s special powers to alienate coparcenary property for antecedent debts not tainted by illegality/immorality, and (ii) exemplars of legal necessity (including daughters’ marriage expenses). It affirms that once legal necessity is proved, a coparcener-son cannot impeach the sale.

• Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath, (1970) 3 SCC 722:

  Cited for the proposition that the onus is on the alienee to establish that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The present judgment harmonizes this onus with Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

• Mulla, Hindu Law (22nd ed.):

  Particularly Article 241 (cataloguing legal necessities including marriage expenses) and Article 254 (father’s special powers), which inform the normative framework applied here.

Legal Reasoning and Application

1) Legal necessity and the “continuing” character of marriage expenses

The Court accepted that Kashibai’s marriage occurred in 1991, before the impugned sale (1995). However, it emphasized that marriage expenses often entail significant debt burdens that can persist and exert “cascading” financial effects over years. Thus, the mere fact that the marriage preceded the sale does not negate legal necessity if a reasonable nexus exists between the sale and outstanding marriage-related obligations.

The Court found that:

• The plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that his father told him the sale was to meet family needs.
• Money receipts for consideration bore signatures of the Karta’s wife, daughter (Kashibai), and two coparceners, corroborating the family’s involvement and the asserted necessity.
• Mutation and land revenue entries evidenced that the purchaser was put in possession post-sale.

Collectively, these facts established a credible and documented nexus to legal necessity.

2) Calibrating the alienee’s onus with Section 106 of the Evidence Act

While the alienee bears the burden to show legal necessity (Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath), the Court clarified that this burden does not require the purchaser to prove matters exclusively within the special knowledge of the coparceners. Invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court held it would be improper to “saddle” the stranger-purchaser with the burden to prove internal facts such as the precise distribution of sale proceeds among family members. The purchaser can meet his onus by:

• Demonstrating a reasonable nexus to recognized heads of legal necessity (e.g., marriage expenses here),
• Proving that he acted with ordinary prudence and made reasonable inquiries, and
• Relying on admissions and corroborative documents (agreements/receipts signed by family members, revenue entries, etc.).

This is a noteworthy doctrinal refinement: it harmonizes the alienee’s evidentiary burden with practical access to proof and the Evidence Act’s special-knowledge principle, avoiding an unrealistic and asymmetrical standard of proof.

3) Ordinary prudence and due diligence by the purchaser

The Court found that the land stood in the Karta’s name, and the purchaser obtained receipts signed by family members, including coparceners and the beneficiary of the marriage expenses. In these circumstances, the purchaser acted as “a man of ordinary prudence.” The High Court’s criticism—that the purchaser did not trace title distribution or internal apportionment of consideration—was misplaced, as it demanded more than reasonable inquiry and disregarded Section 106.

4) Plaintiff’s conduct and credibility

The plaintiff had not challenged prior Karta alienations, despite alleging they were for wasteful habits; he also took no contemporaneous steps to recover supposed deposits or settle accounts. The suit was filed five years after the sale, with an explanation (lack of knowledge) contradicted by public records. These aspects weighed against the plaintiff’s bona fides and supported the Trial Court’s factual findings.

5) Appellate oversight and misappreciation of evidence

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overlooking material evidence—plaintiff’s admission, receipts with family signatures, and mutation entries—while building a “third case” not pleaded (that the plaintiff was away for work and thus ignorant). This overreach justified restoring the Trial Court’s decree.

Impact and Prospective Significance

• Evidentiary balance reset: The decision explicitly calibrates the alienee’s onus with Section 106 Evidence Act, thereby preventing courts from demanding proof of internal family financial allocations from purchasers. This enhances transactional certainty for bona fide buyers of HUF property alienated by a Karta.
• Continuing necessity doctrine: Recognizing marriage-related debts as a continuing necessity legitimizes sales executed after the event, provided a demonstrable nexus exists. This aligns doctrine with socio-economic realities of marriage financing in India.
• Due diligence standard clarified: Purchasers need to act with ordinary prudence—verify Karta’s title entries, seek acknowledgments/receipts from family members, and document consideration. This case shows such steps can suffice to discharge the purchaser’s onus.
• Litigation strategy for coparceners: Delayed challenges and failure to contest earlier alienations may weaken credibility. Plaintiffs should be prepared with positive proof negating necessity or demonstrating lack of inquiry by the purchaser, not mere allegations of Karta’s extravagance.
• Appellate restraint: High Courts should avoid substituting their view without engaging with material admissions and public records; reversing well-reasoned trial findings demands careful attention to evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Hindu Undivided Family (HUF): A family unit consisting of lineal descendants living jointly, owning coparcenary property jointly. The Karta manages HUF property and represents the family in transactions.
• Karta’s powers: The Karta can alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and such alienation binds all coparceners. The father, as Karta, may also alienate to pay antecedent debts not tainted by illegality.
• Legal necessity: Necessities recognized by law include marriage expenses (including those of daughters), maintenance, payment of government dues and debts, litigation to preserve the estate, etc. It is a flexible, fact-dependent standard.
• Bona fide purchaser for value: A buyer who purchases property for consideration, acting in good faith and with reasonable inquiry. Not required to prove every internal family detail; must show prudence and a nexus to necessity.
• Section 106 Evidence Act: When any fact is “especially within the knowledge” of a person, the burden to prove that fact lies upon him. Courts use this to avoid imposing impossible burdens on the opposing party. Here, internal distribution of sale proceeds among coparceners was within the family’s special knowledge, not the purchaser’s.
• Mutation and land revenue entries: Administrative records reflecting change of possession/ownership; while not conclusive of title, they are corroborative evidence of possession and the parties’ conduct.
• Ordinary prudence standard: The benchmark for what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances—e.g., checking title, obtaining family acknowledgments, and verifying possession.

Practice Pointers

For Purchasers of HUF Property

• Verify that the seller is the Karta; check land records showing the Karta’s name.
• Document the necessity: obtain receipts/acknowledgments signed by adult family members/coparceners where feasible.
• Maintain copies of agreements, consideration receipts, and mutation/land revenue entries post-sale.
• Record the nexus to a recognized legal necessity (e.g., marriage expenses), even if the event has already occurred, where debts persist.

For Coparceners Challenging Karta Alienations

• Act promptly; explain delay credibly and reconcile with public records.
• Produce affirmative evidence negating necessity or showing lack of reasonable inquiry by the purchaser.
• If alleging misuse of proceeds, be prepared to prove internal facts (Section 106), rather than demanding the purchaser prove them.
• Consistency matters: unexplained failure to challenge prior alienations may be viewed adversely.

Conclusion

Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa recalibrates the evidentiary burdens in Karta alienations in a manner that is both doctrinally coherent and practically grounded. By recognizing marriage-related debts as a continuing legal necessity and synchronizing the alienee’s burden with Section 106 Evidence Act, the Supreme Court provides clarity on what constitutes reasonable inquiry and proof from a purchaser in HUF transactions. The judgment fortifies transactional certainty while preserving coparceners’ right to impeach mala fide sales—provided they bring concrete, timely, and family-specific evidence to court.

Key takeaways:

• Legal necessity is fact-sensitive; marriage expenses can justify sales even post-event if debts persist.
• The alienee’s duty is one of reasonable prudence and nexus, not omniscient proof of family-internal matters.
• Section 106 Evidence Act operates as a limiting principle on the purchaser’s burden.
• Delayed, unsupported challenges—especially in the face of admissions and public records—are unlikely to succeed.

The decision thus establishes a principled framework that balances the Karta’s managerial autonomy, the coparceners’ protective rights, and marketplace confidence in titles derived from HUF alienations.