Drunkard Father’s Sale of Ancestral Land Upheld: P&H High Court Says Daughters’ Marriage, Tractor Loan & Farm Equipment Are ‘Legal Necessity’
Case Name: Joginder Singh and Others v. Kesar Singh
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2026
Citation: RSA-2760-1995
Bench: Justice Parmod Goyal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the mortgage and sale of ancestral coparcenary property executed by the karta, holding that the alienations were supported by legal necessity including repayment of antecedent debt, redemption of earlier mortgages, purchase of agricultural equipment, repayment of tractor loan, and marriage expenses of daughters. The Court held that marriage of daughters is a “pious obligation” fully covered within the expression legal necessity.
Summary: The dispute concerned ancestral agricultural land measuring 24 kanals 1 marla situated in Village Sura, District Kurukshetra. The plaintiffs, sons of Phool Singh, challenged the mortgage deed dated 06.11.1981 and sale deed dated 01.07.1983 executed by their father in favour of Kesar Singh.
The plaintiffs contended that the property was joint Hindu family coparcenary property and that Phool Singh had no authority to alienate it. They alleged that the transactions were not backed by legal necessity and were executed merely to satisfy his alleged habits of drinking, gambling, and other vices. The plaintiffs also relied upon an earlier injunction order restraining Phool Singh from alienating the property.
The defendant-purchaser opposed the suit and asserted that the transactions were necessitated by genuine financial compulsions. It was specifically pleaded that the land had been mortgaged to discharge earlier debts, repay tractor loan instalments, purchase agricultural equipment, and arrange marriages of Phool Singh’s daughters.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, holding that the transactions were supported by legal necessity.
Before the High Court, the primary controversy centered on whether the mortgage and sale of ancestral property by the karta were justified by legal necessity. The High Court first affirmed the concurrent finding that the suit property was ancestral coparcenary property inherited by Phool Singh from his father.
However, the Court held that the defendants had successfully established legal necessity through documentary and oral evidence. The Court noted that the mortgage deed dated 06.11.1981 was executed for ₹63,000, out of which ₹42,000 was earmarked for redemption of an earlier mortgage while the remaining amount was utilized for agricultural purposes.
The High Court relied upon evidence proving that Phool Singh had purchased tractor implements, trolley equipment, harrow, and tiller after the mortgage transaction. The Court also noted that bank evidence established payment of tractor loan instalments from the mortgage proceeds.
With respect to the subsequent sale deed executed in 1983 for ₹1,05,000, the Court observed that the sale consideration was used for redemption of the mortgage liability, repayment of debts, agricultural needs, and marriage expenses of daughters. Admissions made by the plaintiffs themselves revealed that the daughters’ marriages were solemnized around the same period.
The High Court emphatically observed that marriage of daughters by a karta is a “pious obligation” and squarely falls within the scope of legal necessity under Hindu law. The Court held that even if marriages were solemnized subsequently, the need to arrange funds for daughters of marriageable age itself constituted sufficient legal necessity.
The Court also attached significance to the testimony of Phool Singh himself, who admitted execution of the mortgage and sale deeds, acknowledged prior mortgages, and admitted that portions of the mortgaged land had been redeemed from the sale proceeds.
Rejecting the challenge based on the earlier injunction order, the Court observed that there was no evidence showing that Phool Singh had knowledge of the injunction or that any proceedings for its violation were initiated. The Court further noted that Phool Singh had obtained income tax clearance before executing the sale deed, which reflected voluntary participation in the transaction.
Finding no perversity in the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, the High Court concluded that both the mortgage and sale transactions were genuine and legally justified.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the validity of the mortgage deed and sale deed executed by Phool Singh, holding that both transactions were backed by legal necessity and were therefore binding on the coparcenary property.