2018 INSC 0548
         REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3264 OF 2011
Kehar Singh (D) Thr.
L.Rs. & Ors.           .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Nachittar Kaur & Ors.            .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This   appeal   is   filed   by   the   legal   representatives   of   the
original   plaintiff     against  the   final   judgment   and   order   dated
20.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh   in   R.S.A.   No.   1734   of   1968   whereby   the   High
Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents(defendants)
and dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff.
2) In   order   to   appreciate   the   factual   and   legal   controversy
involved   in   the   appeal,   it   is   necessary   to   state   the   facts   in
detail  infra .
1

3)   The   appellants   are   the   legal   representatives   of   the
original   plaintiff   whereas   the   respondents   are   the   legal
representatives   of   the   original   defendants,   who   were   brought
on   record   during   the   pendency   of   this   litigation   consequent
upon the death of both plaintiff and the defendants.
4) The dispute in this appeal is between the son, father and
the   purchasers   of   the   suit   land   from   father.   It   relates   to   a
land   measuring   around   164   Kanals   1   Marla   entered   in
rectangle No.46 Killa Nos. 8/1, 19/2, 21/2, 22/2, 23, 24 and
rectangle No.52, Killa Nos. 1/2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12/1, 13,
14,   15,   16,   17,   18,   23,   24,   25   entered   in   Khata   No.6/9
Jamabandi     1957­58   at   present   entered   in   Khata   No.2/2
Jamabandi   1962­63   situated   in   Village   Bhamian   Kalan,
Tehsil Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as  "suit land" ).
5) One Pritam  Singh(defendant No.1) was the owner of the
suit   land.   He   sold   the   suit   land   on   25.04.1960   by   registered
sale   deed   to   Tara   Singh(defendant   No.2)   and   Ajit
Singh(defendant   No.3)   for   Rs.19,500/­.     Both   vendees
namely, Tara Singh and Ajit Singh were placed in possession
2

of the suit land.
6) On   27.11.1964,   Kehar   Singh   s/o   Pritam   Singh   filed   a
civil suit (Case No. 429/325 of 1964) against Tara Singh and
Ajit Singh in the Court of Sub­Judge 2nd class, Ludhiana. 
7) The   suit   was   founded   inter   alia   on   the   allegations   that
the   suit   land   was   and   continues   to   be   an   ancestral   property
of the family of which the plaintiff is one of its members along
with   his   father­   Pritam   Singh,   that   the   plaintiff's   family   is
governed   by   the   custom,   which   applies   to   sale   of   family
property   inter   se   family   members,   that   the   plaintiff   has   a
share in the suit land along with his father­ Pritam Singh as
one of the coparceners, that Pritam Singh had no right to sell
the  suit  land without  obtaining  the plaintiff's consent,  which
he never gave to his father for sale of the suit land, that there
was   no   legal   necessity   of   the   family   which   could   permit
Pritam Singh to sell the suit land to defendant Nos. 2 and 3,
that the suit land and the rights of the parties to the suit are
governed   by   the   provisions   of   the   Punjab   Custom   (Power   to
Contest) Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” ).
3

8) The   plaintiff   prayed   for   a   relief   of   declaration   on   the
aforementioned   allegations   that   first,   the   sale   made   by   his
father­Pritam   Singh   in   favour   of   Tara   Singh   and   Ajit   Singh
vide  sale  deed  dated  25.04.1960     in   relation   to   the  suit   land
be declared as not binding  on the plaintiff;   Second, the sale
in   question   is   void   and   does   not   convey   any   right,   title   and
interest in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
9)   The   defendants   contested   the   suit.   According   to   them,
the suit land was not ancestral one; that the parties were not
governed   by   any   custom;   that   the   sale   deed   in   question   was
executed   for   consideration   and   for   legal   necessity   of   the
family;   that   the   sale   was   made   for   discharge   of   family   debts
and for  improving  the farming; that the defendant Nos.2 & 3
are   the   bona   fide   purchasers   of   the   suit   land   for
consideration.
10) The   Trial   Court   framed   issues.   Parties   adduced   their
evidence.   By   Judgment/decree   dated   17.12.1966,   the   Trial
Court   decreed   the   plaintiff’s   suit.   It   was   held   that   the   suit
land   was   an   ancestral   property   and     there   was   no   legal
4

necessity to sell the suit land.
11) Defendant Nos.2 & 3 felt aggrieved and filed first appeal
(C.A.   No.31   of   1967)   before   the   first   Appellate   Court.   By
judgment/decree  dated   11.06.1968,   the  first   Appellate   Court
partly   allowed   the   defendants’   appeal   and   modified   the
judgment/decree of the Trial Court. 
12) It was held by the first Appellate Court that the suit land
was an ancestral property of the family; that the parties to the
suit   are   governed   by   the   custom;   that   defendant   Nos.2   &   3
were   able   to   prove   legal   necessity   for   the   family   partially   to
the   extent   of   Rs.7399/­   ;   and   lastly,     the   reversioners   of
Pritam Singh would, therefore, be entitled to get possession of
the suit land after the demise of Pritam Singh on payment of
Rs.7399/­   and the sale in question would not be binding on
their reversionary interests.
13) Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (purchasers of the suit land) felt
aggrieved   and   filed   second   appeal   before   the   High   Court.
During   the   pendency   of   second   appeal,   the   Punjab   Custom
(Power   to   Contest)   Amendment   Act,   1973   came   into   force
5

w.e.f. 23.01.1973. 
14) The High Court, by order dated 22.04.1974, allowed the
second appeal and dismissed the suit in view of   the law laid
down  by   the   High  Court   of  Punjab   &  Haryana   in  the   case  of
Charan Singh vs. Gehl Singh , 1974 PLR 125 wherein it was
held   that   the   Amendment   Act   of   1973   was   retrospective   in
nature   and,   therefore,   in   the   light   of   the   amendment,   the
plaintiff had no right to challenge the alienation made by his
father under the custom prevailing at the relevant time. 
15) The plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed appeal in this Court.
This   Court   disposed   of   the   said   appeal   along   with   other
appeals involving the similar  point   (See    Darshan Singh  vs.
Ram Pal Singh & Anr.,  AIR 1991 SC 1654).  It   was   held   by
this   Court   that   the   Amendment   of   1973   made   in   the   Act   is
retrospective   in   nature   and   that   the   law   laid   down   by   the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of  Charan Singh
(supra)   is   correct   and   does   not   need   any   reconsideration.   It
was   also   held   that   since   the   High   Court   while   deciding   the
second   appeal   did   not   examine   the   question   involved   in   the
6

appeal in the context of principles of Hindu Law,   the matter
has to be remanded to the High Court for deciding the second
appeal afresh in the light of the principles of Hindu law. This
is   how   the   matter   was   remanded   to   the   High   Court   for
deciding the second appeal afresh.
16)  On   remand,   the   High   Court   asked   the   parties   as   to
whether   they   want   to   lead   any   additional   evidence   to   enable
the   High   Court   to   decide   the   appeal,   as   directed   by   this
Court.   The   parties   stated   that   they   do   not   want   to   lead   any
additional   evidence   and   the   High   Court   could   decide   the
appeal on the basis of evidence already adduced. 
17) By   impugned   order,   the   High   Court   allowed   the   appeal
filed   by   the   defendants   and   dismissed   the   suit.   It   was   held
that   the   suit   land   was   an   ancestral   property   of   the   family;
that   Pritam   Singh   being   a   Karta   had   a   right   to   sell   the   suit
land;   that   there   did   exist   a   legal   necessity   of   the   family   for
which   the   suit   land   was   required   to   be   sold   by   Karta;   that
there   were   two   debts   (Taccavi   loan   and   one   private   loan)   on
the   family   and   secondly   the   family   had   an   agriculture   land
7

which needed improvement; that with a view to discharge the
loan liability and to undertake the improvement on the land,
the   Karta­Pritam   Singh   sold   the   suit   land   for   valuable
consideration;   that   these   facts   were   duly   mentioned   in   the
sale deed in question; that the sale was, therefore,   bona fide,
legal   and   made   for   valuable   consideration.   It   is,   therefore,
binding on the plaintiff.
18) The   plaintiff   felt   aggrieved   and   filed   the   present   appeal
by way of special leave in this Court. 
19) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
20) The main question, which now survives for consideration
in   this   appeal,   is   whether   the   High   Court   was   justified   in
holding that the sale made by defendant No.1­Pritam Singh in
favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was for legal necessity and,
if so, whether it was legal and valid sale.
21) So   far   as   the   nature   and   character   of   the   suit   land   is
concerned,   it   was   held   to   be   ancestral   land   and   since   no
challenge   was   made   to   this   finding,   it   is   not   necessary   to
examine this question in this appeal. 
8

22)     Mulla   in   his   classic   work   "Hindu   Law"   while   dealing
with   the   right   of   a   father   to   alienate   any   ancestral   property
said in Article 254, which reads as under:
“ Article 254
254.  Alienation by father – A Hindu father as such has
special   powers   of   alienating   coparcenary   property,
which   no   other   coparcener   has.     In   the   exercise   of
these powers he may:
(1) make   a   gift   of   ancestral   movable   property   to   the
extent   mentioned   in   Article   223,   and   even   of
ancestral   immovable   property   to   the   extent
mentioned in Article 224;
(2) sell   or   mortgage   ancestral   property,   whether
movable   or   immovable,   including   the   interest   of
his   sons,   grandsons   and   great­grandsons   therein,
for   the   payment   of   his   own   debt,   provided   the
debt   was   an   antecedent   debt,   and   was   not
incurred   for   immoral   or   illegal   purposes(Article
294).”          
 
23) What is legal necessity was also succinctly said by Mulla
in Article 241, which reads as under: 
“ Article 241
241.   What   is   legal   necessity­   The   following   have   been
held   to   be   family   necessities   within   the   meaning   of
Article 240:
(a) payment   of   government   revenue   and   of   debts
which are payable out of the family property;
9

(b) Maintenance   of   coparceners   and   of   the   members
of their families;
(c) Marriage expenses of male coparceners, and of the
daughters of coparceners;
(d) Performance   of   the   necessary   funeral   or   family
ceremonies;
(e) Costs   of   necessary   litigation   in   recovering   or
preserving the estate;
(f) Costs of defending the head of the joint family or
any   other   member   against   a   serious   criminal
charge;
(g) Payment   of   debts   incurred   for   family   business   or
other necessary purpose.  In the case of a manager
other   than   a   father,   it   is   not   enough   to   show
merely that the debt is a pre­existing debt;
The above are not the only indices for concluding
as   to   whether   the   alienation   was   indeed   for   legal
necessity,   nor   can   the   enumeration   of   criterion   for
establishing   legal   necessity   be   copious   or   even
predictable.     It   must   therefore   depend   on   the   facts   of
each   case.     When,   therefore,   property   is   sold   in   order
to   fulfil   tax   obligations   incurred   by   a   family   business,
such   alienation   can   be   classified   as   constituting   legal
necessity.” 
(see Hindu Law by Mulla “22 nd
 Edition”)
24) The High Court, after taking note of the aforementioned
legal principles of Hindu law, dealt with this question on facts
in para 12, which reads as under: 
“ 12.    In  the  light of  the  aforesaid  legal  position,  now it
10

has   to   be   examined   as   to   whether   the   defendants   have
discharged their onus to prove the existence of the legal
necessity   at   the   time   of   the   impugned   sale   deed.
Defendant   Tara   Singh,   while   appearing   as   DW   13   has
stated   that   amount   of   Rs.5,500/­   was   paid   by   him   as
earnest   money,   Rs.500/­   was   spent   for   payment   of
Taccavi loan and registration of sale deed and Rs.934/­
was   paid   to   the   vendor,   about   3­4   days   prior   to   the
registration   of   the   sale   deed,   for   payment   of   Taccavi
loan   an   amount   of   Rs.12,566/­   was   paid   at  the   time   of
registration of the sale deed.  DW 1 Shri Gopal, who was
an  Assistant in   the  DC  office,  Ludhiana   has  stated   that
Pritam   Singh   vendor   was   granted   loan   of   Rs.3,000/­   in
the year 1995 and he did not pay a penny from the said
loan   till   20.11.1964.     DW   2   Ram   Dass,   a   tubewell
mechanic   has   proved   that   Pritam   Singh   had   spent
Rs.4,000/­   for   installing   a   tubewell   in   the   year   1963.
DW   9   Sat   Pal,   Additional   Wasil   Baqa   Nawis,   Ludhiana
has   proved   that   the   vendor   Pritam   Singh   had   taken
various loans from the department for purchase of seeds
bag.     Rs.500/­   for   repair   of   house   and   Rs.2,500/­   for
purchasing   pumping   set.     This   witness   further   stated
that Pritam Singh had purchased a Rehri for Rs.1,025/­
from   him   in   the   year   1961.     DW   11   Dalip   Singh   has
proved   that   Pritam   Singh   had   borrowed   a   sum   of
Rs.3,000/­   from   him   in   the   year   1959   by   executing   a
pronote.  This witness has also stated that Pritam Singh
had performed marriage of his 5 children.”    
25) In our considered opinion, the approach, reasoning and
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on the question of
legal   necessity   as   to   whether   it   existed   in   this   case   while
selling  the suit land by  Pritam  Singh  or  not does not  call for
any   interference   as   the   same   was   rightly   dealt   with   by   the
11

High Court while appreciating the evidence on record.
26) It has come in evidence that firstly,  the family owed two
debts   and   secondly,   the   family   also   needed   money   to   make
improvement   in   agriculture   land   belonging   to   the   family.
Pritam Singh, being a Karta of   the family, had every right to
sell   the   suit   land   belonging   to   family   to   discharge   the   debt
liability   and   spend   some   money   to   make   improvement   in
agriculture land for the maintenance of his family. These facts
were also mentioned in the sale deed.
27)     In our considered opinion, a case of legal necessity for
sale   of   ancestral   property   by   the   Karta   (Pritam   Singh)   was,
therefore,  made   out   on   facts.  In  other   words,  the   defendants
were  able  to   discharge  the  burden  that  lay   on  them  to   prove
the   existence   of   legal   necessity   for   sale   of   suit   land   to
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3.   The   defendants   thus   satisfied   the
test   laid  down   in   Hindu   law  as   explained  by   Mulla   in  Article
254 (2) read with Article 241 (a) and (g) quoted above.
12

28) Once   the   factum   of   existence   of   legal   necessity   stood
proved, then, in our view, no co­coparcener (son) has a right
to   challenge   the   sale   made   by   the   Karta   of   his   family.   The
plaintiff being a son was one of the co­coparceners along with
his   father­Pritam   Singh.   He   had   no   right   to   challenge   such
sale   in   the   light   of   findings   of   legal   necessity   being   recorded
against him. It was more so when the plaintiff failed to prove
by   any   evidence   that   there   was   no   legal   necessity   for   sale   of
the suit land or that the evidence adduced by the defendants
to  prove the factum  of existence of legal  necessity  was either
insufficient or irrelevant or no evidence at all.
29)   We   are,   therefore,   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is
just and proper. We, therefore, concur with the view taken by
the High Court calling for no interference.
13

30) In view of the foregoing  discussion,  the appeal  fails and
is accordingly dismissed. 
                         
… ...……..................................J.
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
……… ...................................J.
        [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018 
14