Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur
“Karta Cannot Sell Coparcenary Property Without Legal Necessity”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that a coparcener acquires rights in ancestral property by birth under pre-1956 Mitakshara law. The Karta's power to sell is limited to cases of legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and the burden of proving legal necessity is on the purchaser.
The Bottom Line
A father cannot sell ancestral property without legal necessity. If succession opened before 1956, sons acquire coparcenary rights by birth and their shares cannot be alienated without their consent.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Death of Lal Singh
Succession opened; property passed to Inder Singh
Death of Lal Singh
Succession opened; property passed to Inder Singh
Birth of Arshnoor Singh
Appellant born, acquiring coparcenary rights
Birth of Arshnoor Singh
Appellant born, acquiring coparcenary rights
Sale Deeds Executed
Dharam Singh executed sale deeds to Harpal Kaur
Sale Deeds Executed
Dharam Singh executed sale deeds to Harpal Kaur
Marriage to Harpal Kaur
Dharam Singh married Harpal Kaur (the purchaser)
Marriage to Harpal Kaur
Dharam Singh married Harpal Kaur (the purchaser)
Further Transfer
Harpal Kaur transferred property to Respondents 2 & 3 during litigation
Further Transfer
Harpal Kaur transferred property to Respondents 2 & 3 during litigation
Trial Court Decree
Trial court ruled in favor of Arshnoor Singh
Trial Court Decree
Trial court ruled in favor of Arshnoor Singh
High Court Reversal
High Court reversed the trial court decision
High Court Reversal
High Court reversed the trial court decision
Supreme Court Judgment
Sale deeds declared invalid; trial court decree restored
Supreme Court Judgment
Sale deeds declared invalid; trial court decree restored
The Story
Lal Singh was the owner of large tracts of agricultural land in Village Khangarh, District Ferozepur, Punjab. The appellant Arshnoor Singh was his great-grandson. Lal Singh passed away in 1951, and his property was inherited by his only son Inder Singh.
Arshnoor Singh was born on 22.08.1985 to Dharam Singh (grandson of Lal Singh). On 01.09.1999, when Arshnoor Singh was a minor, Dharam Singh executed two sale deeds purportedly selling the entire suit property to Respondent No. 1 (Harpal Kaur) for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 4,87,500.
Significantly, when Dharam Singh and Harpal Kaur appeared before the Collector, Dharam Singh admitted that no consideration was actually exchanged, and the amount was mentioned only for registration purposes. Harpal Kaur also admitted that no money was paid.
Subsequently, on 29.09.1999, Dharam Singh married Harpal Kaur (Respondent No. 1), revealing that the sale was a colorable transaction to benefit his second wife at the expense of his minor son from his first marriage.
Arshnoor Singh challenged the sale deeds, claiming his coparcenary rights in the ancestral property.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Coparcenary rights by birth
Arshnoor Singh argued that since succession opened in 1951 (before HSA 1956), old Mitakshara law applies and he acquired coparcenary rights by birth.
No legal necessity for sale
The sales were without consideration and without any legal necessity or benefit to the estate.
Fraudulent transaction
The sale was a colorable device by Dharam Singh to benefit his second wife at the expense of his minor son.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Hindu Succession Act applies
Respondents contended that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 should apply, under which property becomes self-acquired on inheritance.
Karta has power to alienate
As Karta, Dharam Singh had the authority to deal with family property.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court held that the determinative factor is the date of opening of succession. Since Lal Singh died in 1951 (before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956), old Mitakshara law applies. Under this law, property devolved by survivorship to Inder Singh, and remained coparcenary property. Arshnoor Singh acquired coparcenary rights by birth in 1985.
The succession opened on the demise of the common ancestor, Lal Singh, which took place before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence, old Mitakshara law was applicable.
Para Para 18
Establishes that pre-1956 law applies based on date of succession.
The property which devolved on Lal Singh's demise was coparcenary property wherein the male descendants three degrees below him acquired an interest by birth.
Para Para 22
Confirms coparcenary rights by birth.
On his birth, Arshnoor became a coparcener. The Karta's power to sell is tightly limited to legal necessity or benefit of the estate.
Para Para 25
Defines limits on Karta's alienation powers.
The power of Karta to sell coparcenary property is subject to restrictions - the sale should be for legal necessity or for benefit of estate, and the onus for establishing existence of legal necessity is on the alienee.
Para Para 28
Places burden of proving legal necessity on the purchaser.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Sale deeds dated 01.09.1999 declared null and void; appellant's coparcenary rights in ancestral property protected.
Directions Issued
- Old Mitakshara law applies to succession opening before 1956
- Arshnoor Singh acquired coparcenary rights by birth
- Sale deeds lacked consideration and legal necessity
- Trial court decree in favor of Arshnoor Singh restored
Key Legal Principles Established
Date of opening of succession determines applicable law
Pre-1956 succession is governed by Mitakshara law
Coparcenary rights arise by birth under Mitakshara law
Karta's power to alienate is limited to legal necessity or estate benefit
Burden of proving legal necessity is on the alienee/purchaser
Sales without consideration and legal necessity are void
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If your ancestor died before 1956, old Hindu law applies to inheritance
- You acquire rights in ancestral property by birth, not by inheritance
- Your father cannot sell ancestral property without your consent unless there is genuine family need
- If you suspect fraudulent sale of ancestral property, you can challenge it in court
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 6 (pre-2005 amendment)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“When a male Hindu dies leaving undivided interest in coparcenary property, his interest shall devolve by survivorship.”
Relevance: Governs post-1956 succession to coparcenary property.
Related Cases & Precedents
Uttam v. Saubhag Singh
distinguished(2016) 4 SCC 68
Applied to post-1956 succession; not applicable here as succession was pre-1956.
Doddamuniyappa v. Muniswamy
cited(2019) 7 SCC 193
Property inherited from father becomes joint family property.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.