EPISODE · Oct 12, 2025 · 6 MIN
Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa @Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs & Ors. 2025 INSC 1120
from Nyay Samachar · host Scoot Legal Translation & Transcription Services
A KARTA’S RIGHT TO ALIENATE HUF property is well-settled, but what happens when a coparcener challenges the sale years later? The Supreme Court recently clarified the law on "legal necessity," emphasizing that debts from a daughter's marriage can justify a sale even years after the event. The Court also highlighted how Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prevents shifting the burden of proof to the purchaser for facts exclusively known to the coparceners.Legal statutes - 1. Indian Evidence Act, 18722. Hindu law Case Laws: (a) Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263(b) Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54(c) Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018) 14 SCC 445(d) Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722
Embed this episode
NOW PLAYING
Dastagirsab vs. Sharanappa @Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs & Ors. 2025 INSC 1120
No transcript for this episode yet
Similar Episodes
No similar episodes found.