Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa @Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs & Ors. 2025 INSC 1120
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa @Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs & Ors. 2025 INSC 1120
A KARTA’S RIGHT TO ALIENATE HUF property is well-settled, but what happens when a coparcener challenges the sale years later?
The Supreme Court recently clarified the law on "legal necessity," emphasizing that debts from a daughter's marriage can justify a sale even years after the event.
The Court also highlighted how Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prevents shifting the burden of proof to the purchaser for facts exclusively known to the coparceners.
Legal statutes -
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Hindu law
Case Laws:
(a) Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263
(b) Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54
(c) Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018) 14 SCC 445
(d) Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722
View all episodes
By Scoot Legal Translation & Transcription ServicesA KARTA’S RIGHT TO ALIENATE HUF property is well-settled, but what happens when a coparcener challenges the sale years later?
The Supreme Court recently clarified the law on "legal necessity," emphasizing that debts from a daughter's marriage can justify a sale even years after the event.
The Court also highlighted how Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prevents shifting the burden of proof to the purchaser for facts exclusively known to the coparceners.
Legal statutes -
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Hindu law
Case Laws:
(a) Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263
(b) Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54
(c) Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018) 14 SCC 445
(d) Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722