Alienation of Ancestral Property: Judicial Precedents
The Hindu Joint Family
A Hindu joint family is a family arrangement comprising of all the lineal male descendants of a common ancestor, together with the wives and unmarried daughters of such descendants [1]. It includes members bound by the principle of ‘sapindaship’[2], arising by birth, marriage, or adoption. While a Hindu joint family originates from a common ancestor, its continued existence does not depend on the survival of such ancestor. A Hindu family living together in matters of either food, worship, or property is presumed to be joint, unless proven otherwise [3].
Coparcenary
A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body within the Hindu joint family. It is formed by the propositus (i.e., the person from whom the line of descent is traced) and his three lineal descendants, referred to as coparceners. Prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, only male members acquired coparcenary rights by birth. However, after the amendment, daughters are also recognized as coparceners with the same rights as sons.
Coparcenary Property
Coparcenary property also known as ancestral property [4] is property inherited from his/her three immediate paternal ancestors i.e., father, grandfather, or great-grandfather. Such property is held collectively by the coparcenary, and any coparcener is entitled to seek partition [5]. However, property inherited from relations beyond these three paternal ancestors is held as the individual’s absolute property [6].
Karta's Power of Alienation
Historically, alienation of property held jointly by the Hindu family was severely restricted to protect the interests of all family members in the ancestral property. The authority to manage and, in certain limited circumstances, alienate such property vested with the Karta of the Hindu joint family. The Karta is ordinarily the senior-most member of a Hindu joint family. Only a coparcener can be in a position of Karta [7]. With the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, a Hindu woman, being a coparcener, is now equally entitled to act as the Karta of a joint Hindu family [8].
Grounds for Alienationby Karta
Hindu law, as expounded by Vijnaneshwara [9], laid down only three grounds on which alienation of ancestral property could be justified i.e., in the event of Apatkale(in times of distress), Kutumbar the (for the benefit of the family), and Dharmar the (for religious or charitable purposes). These categories were subsequently clarified and expanded by judicial interpretation [10] to mean for:
(a) legal necessity,
(b) benefit of the estate, and
(c) discharge of indispensableduties.
Unjustified Alienation
Although the Karta has power to alienate ancestral property, the law raises no presumption regarding the validity of such transactions. The Courts have held that the acts of Karta could be questioned in a court of law and other members of the family have a right to have the transaction declared void, if it is not justified[11].When an alienation is challenged, the burden of proof shifts to the alienee(purchaser) to demonstrate that the transaction was justified by legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate; or the alienee conducted bona fide inquiries regarding the necessity and reasonably satisfied himself that the Karta was acting for the benefit of the estate [12].
Consequence of Unjustified Alienation
The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumarv. Ram Prakash clarified that a coparcener cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction against the Karta’s power of alienation. The coparcener’s remedy arises only post-alienation, by challenging the transaction and seeking recovery of the property. This distinction was made to ensure that while the right to question alienation exists, the law does not permit interference with Karta’s managerial authority through preventive injunctions.
If an alienation is found to be unjustified, it is declared void. However, the extent of voidness varies by region. In Madras, Bombay, and Central Provinces, the alienation is void except for the Karta's share. Therefore, the purchaser receives only the Karta’s share. In other provinces the entire transaction is considered void [13].
Conclusion
Under Hindu law, the Karta’s power to alienate ancestral property is confined to circumstances of legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or the discharge of indispensable duties. Judicial precedents reaffirm that while coparceners cannot preventively restrain the Karta in the exercise of managerial authority, they retain the right to challenge alienations post facto. This framework protects the sharedinterests of the coparcenary, holds the Karta’s decisions accountable to legalscrutiny, while also acknowledging the practical need for timely action insituations of genuine exigencies.
References
[1] Surjit Lal Chhabda v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay before the Supreme Court of India (AIR1976SC 109).
[2] As per Section 3 (f) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, two persons are considered sapindas if one is a direct ancestor of the other within the prescribed degrees of relationship, or if they share a common ancestor who falls within those degrees for both.
[3] Sathyaprema Manjunatha Gowda v. Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka before Supreme Court of India (1997 (3)CCC 57).
[4] Navtej Singh and Tej Pal Singhv. Balkar Singh son of Balraj Singh.
[5] State Bank of India v. GhamandiRam (1969 AIR 1330).
[6] The Supreme Court in Mangamal @Thulasi and Another v. T. B. Raju and Others, held that property inherited from mother, grandmother, uncle and even brother is not ancestral property.
[7] C.I.T v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (AIR 1966 S.C. 240).
[8] Sujata Sharma v. Mannu Gupta (2016).
[9] Vijnaneshwara wrote the famous‘ Mitakshara’ that became the basis of Hindu law and Indian jurisprudence.
[10] Subhodkumar and Ors. v.Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre and Ors (2007 INSC 75).
[11] Sushil Kumar v. Ram Prakash Rani and Another v. Santa Bala Debnath and Others (1971 AIR 1028).
[12] Sushil Kumar (Sunil) and Anr.v. Ram Prakash and Others.