[Landmark Judgement] Sri Narayan Bal V. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 

Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: October 11, 2023 at 01:42 IST

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Sri Narayan Bal V. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) has the right to sell/dispose of/alienate an Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, even if a minor of the family has undivided interest. It is held that HUF is capable of acting through its Karta or an adult member of the family in the management of the HUF property.

5. With regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor in joint family property, the provisions afore-culled are beads of the same string and need to be viewed in a single glimpse, simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each provision, and in particular Section 8, cannot be viewed in isolation. If read together the intent of the legislature in this beneficial legislation becomes manifest.

……………..This is the legislative scheme on the subject. Under Section 8 a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor’s undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the court under Section 8 for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required.

The joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property. Thus Section 8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12, would not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property. The question posed at the outset therefore is so answered.

6. In the instant case the finding recorded by the courts below is that Jag Bandhu, the eldest male member in the family acted as a Karta in executing the sale and had joined with him the two widows for themselves and as guardians of the minor members of joint Hindu family, as supporting executants. That act by itself is not indicative of the minors having a divided interest in the joint Hindu family property commencing before or at the time of the sale. In this view of the matter, Section 8 of the Act can be of no avail to the appellant’s claim to nullify the sale.

Drafted by Abhijit Mishra

Related Post