Karta Can Alienate Minor's Joint Family Property Share Without Court Nod: Madras HC

The Madras High Court ruled that a Hindu Karta can alienate joint family property, including minor’s share. He/She does not require Court’s permission under guardianship law to alienate a minor coparcener's undivided joint family interest. 

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete affirmed a trial court decree granting specific performance in favor of a deceased purchaser’s legal representatives. The Bench confirmed that registered sale agreements cannot be arbitrarily recast as mere security documents without written proof or statutory exceptions. 

Oral Evidence vs Written Contract 

The Madras High Court systematically rejected the appellants' defence that the registered sale agreement was merely executed as collateral security for an underlying debt. Relying on Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the High Court held that oral evidence cannot be admitted to vary or contradict the unambiguous terms of a written contract in the absence of pleaded fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. 

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Once the terms of a transaction have been reduced to writing and the document has been proved, oral evidence cannot ordinarily be admitted to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its terms. Ex. A1, on its face, appears to be an agreement for the sale of the suit property. Therefore, oral evidence intended to alter the character of the transaction and to establish that it was only a security for a loan cannot be accepted unless the case falls within any of the provisos to Section 92 of the Evidence Act." 

Karta Can Alienate Joint Family Property Including Minor’s Share 

Addressing the challenge regarding minor coparceners, the Madras High Court explained the distinct operation of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It held that while a natural guardian requires court sanction to deal with a minor's separate property, a Karta requires no such approval to alienate joint ancestral property for family necessity. 

In its reasoning to explain when Karta can alienate joint family property, Madras high Court stated that "Under Hindu law, the Karta is competent to alienate joint-family property, including the undivided interests of minor coparceners, when the transaction is supported by legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate, or for the welfare of the family. Prior permission of the Court is not required for such alienation by the Karta. The requirement to obtain prior permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, applies to the transfer of a minor’s separate or individual immovable property by his natural guardian, not to the minor’s undivided interest in joint-family property managed by an adult member of the family." 

Background 

The dispute stems from an agreement of sale executed on April 18, 2008, by Defendant 1 (for himself and as guardian of his minor children, Defendants 2 and 3) to sell 1 acre and 34 cents of joint family property in Erode District to Arumugam for Rs.14,34,600/-. An advance of Rs.4,34,600/- was paid, with the balance due by September 15, 2008. 

When the first defendant failed to complete the sale despite pre-suit legal notices and telegrams, the original purchaser instituted a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The defendants resisted the suit by claiming the document was merely executed as security for a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and contended that the agreement was unenforceable against the minor coparceners. Following the death of the original plaintiff, his legal representatives were substituted. 

The Trial Court decreed the suit in 2019, directing delivery of possession after confirming that a sale deed had already been executed through the court execution process in 2017. Dismissing the First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court affirmed the Trial Court's findings that Karta can alienate HUF property, including minor’s shares, without Court’s permission. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: A.S.No.204 of 2019 

Case Title: O.K.Shanmugam and others v. Arumugam (Died) and others 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran 

For the Respondent(s): Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy (for R-1), M/s.A.M.Esakkiappan (for RR 2 to 4), M/s.M.Rajeev Gandhi (for R-7) 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 7894