Property Dispute in Jalna: Supreme Court Upholds Sale by Karta for Legal Necessity

The case of Hirabai (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. involved a long-standing property dispute concerning ancestral property in Jalna, Maharashtra. The Supreme Court, through this ruling, upheld the previous decisions of the Trial Court and High Court, affirming that the sale of the disputed property by the Karta of the family was legal, valid, and binding on all family members.

This case primarily revolved around whether the plaintiffs, who were sisters of the original defendant, had any legal standing to challenge the sale of the property executed by their brother, the Karta of the family, decades after the transaction took place.

Background of the Case

The dispute pertained to a property named “Moti Building” in Jalna, which consisted of four houses, each with separate municipal numbers. The plaintiffs, who were real sisters of the defendant, filed a civil suit challenging the sale of the property, claiming that they were co-owners and that the transaction was executed without their knowledge or consent.

The property was originally sold by defendant No.3, Shankarlal, to Bansilal Shivlal through a registered sale deed dated 07.10.1965. Upon Bansilal’s death, his legal heirs (defendants 1 and 2) inherited the property.

In 1971, defendants 1 and 2 filed a civil suit (CS No. 48/1971) against defendant No.3 and tenants of the property to establish their ownership and secure a permanent injunction. The Trial Court ruled in their favor on 31.01.1975, confirming their ownership.

The plaintiffs, who had not been party to the 1971 case, later filed a fresh civil suit challenging both the sale deed of 1965 and the 1975 judgment, arguing that they had equal rights in the ancestral property and had been deprived of their share.

Key Legal Issues

Was the sale of ancestral property by defendant No.3 legally valid?
Did the plaintiffs have any right to challenge the transaction?
Did the 1975 judgment bind the plaintiffs, even though they were not parties to the previous case?
Was the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs a collusive attempt to shield their brother from the consequences of the 1975 ruling?

Petitioners’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments

The property was ancestral, and as legal heirs, they were entitled to an equal share.
The sale deed executed in 1965 was done without their consent and, therefore, was invalid.
The judgment passed in 1975 was not binding on them as they were not parties to the case.
Since the sale was not executed for legal necessity, it was void and could be challenged.

Respondents’ (Defendants’) Arguments

The suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than three decades after the transaction.
The plaintiffs failed to seek partition of all ancestral properties, making their claim defective.
The sale was made by the Karta for legal necessity, making it binding on all family members.
The suit was a collusive attempt to protect defendant No.3 from execution proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts, the history of the case, and the legal provisions governing ancestral property and sales by a Karta.

Key observations of the Supreme Court:

The findings of the Trial Court and the High Court were concurrent, meaning they were binding and should not be disturbed without strong reasons.
The sale was executed by the Karta of the family (defendant No.3) and was made for legal necessity, which means it was valid under Hindu law.
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the sale was not for the benefit of the family or that there was no legal necessity.
Their suit was filed at the instigation of their brother, defendant No.3, in an attempt to nullify the 1975 ruling and delay execution proceedings.

Key Judgment Excerpt:

“The sale deed has been executed by Shankarlal, who is admittedly the Karta of the family. He was in need of money for paying his dues to different persons. He, therefore, sold the house in favor of Bansilal. Other heirs of Motilal are not necessary parties to this suit. It is for the other heirs, if any, to take recourse to proper remedy in case they feel that the alienation was not in the interest of the family.”

With this, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the sale and that the 1975 ruling was final and binding on all parties.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for property disputes, particularly those involving ancestral properties and sales made by the Karta:

It reaffirms that a Karta has the authority to sell family property for legal necessity, and such sales are binding on all members.
It reinforces the principle that legal disputes should be brought before the courts in a timely manner and not decades after transactions have been executed.
It highlights that collusive suits aimed at delaying execution proceedings or nullifying past judgments will not be entertained by the courts.

Final Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hirabai (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. is a landmark judgment in the domain of property law, upholding the validity of sales executed by a Karta for legal necessity. It sets a strong precedent for similar cases, ensuring that ancestral property disputes are adjudicated fairly and within the framework of the law.

Petitioner Name: Hirabai (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors..
Respondent Name: Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya (D) by L.Rs. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Jalna, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 25-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Hirabai (D) Thr. L.R vs Ramniwas Bansilal La Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category