Partition
Decree of suit for partition and separate possession—Appeal—Suit land belonged to the HUF and had been sold by first defendant-Karta to fifth defendant-purchaser—Plaintiff and second to fourth defendants were coparceners being the sons of first defendant-Karta—HUF had owned various immovable properties—Some of these properties had been sold by first defendant-Karta to various alienees earlier—Earlier sale transactions of HUF properties were for financial needs and plea that previous HUF assets were disposed of to meet the Karta’s extravagant habits was an afterthought—Suit land stood in the name of first defendant-Karta—Relying on such land entries, fifth defendant purchased the land for valuable consideration—Money receipts were executed by some of coparceners—Fifth defendant-purchaser could not have doubted the right of the first defendant-karta to effect the sale for legal necessities and had acted as a man of ordinary prudence to purchase the suit land—Conduct of plaintiff in belatedly challenging the sale transaction after five years raises grave doubt regarding his bona fides—Onus to prove that a sale made by the Karta on behalf of other coparceners of HUF for legal necessity lies on the alienee/purchaser—Fifth defendant-purchaser, through deft cross-examination of plaintiff and other evidence, has established a clear nexus between sale transaction and expenses undertaken for daughter’s marriage and has thereby discharged the onus—Case of fifth defendant-purchaser cannot be disbelieved on the score that all the coparceners had not received the sale consideration—High Court erred in holding sale in favour of fifth defendant was not for legal necessity and latter was not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration—Impugned judgment and decree of High Court is set aside and that of trial court dismissing the suit is upheld—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 12 to 19]
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 106—Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge—Suit for partition—Suit land stood in the name of Karta and fifth defendant purchased the land for valuable consideration—Onus of proof on stranger-purchaser cannot run counter to the principle of reverse burden enshrined in Section 106 of the Evidence Act and saddle him with the liability to prove facts which are within the special knowledge of the coparceners of the HUF.
[Para 16]