Madras High Court
V. Thiagarajan vs K. Paramasivam on 20 April, 2026
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
AS No. 153 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
AS No. 153 of 2014 and
CMP No.28262 of 2025
V. Thiagarajan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. K. Paramasivam
2. P. Bhuvaneswari
3. R. Manickam
4. B. Balasubramaniam
5. P. Jayakumar (died)
6. P. Geetha
7. T.K.N. Masilamani
8. G. Venkatesan
9. M. Maragathavalli
10.P. Sivalingam
11.K. Sakthivel
12.R. Ramesh
13.A. Sakthivel
_______
Page1 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
14.Priya
15.Master Sachin
Represented By Natural Guardian Mother
(14th Respondent) Priya
(R5 Died, R14 And 15 are Brought On Record
As Lrs Of Deceased 5th Respondent Viz.,
P.Jayakumar, Vide Order Of Court Dated
20/03/2023 Made In CMP.No.16359/2022 In
AS.No.153/2014)
16.M/s.Annapoorani Shanmugasundram
Construction (p) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, NH 47,
Sankari Main Road, Ariyanoor,
Salem -636 308.
17.V.Nihal Chand
18.V.Dhinesh Kumar
19.M/s.Mahalakshmi Media (p) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Old No.194,
New No.216, Rayapettah, Bharathi Salai,
Chennai -600 014.
(R16 to R19 are impleaded as party respondents
vide court order dated 15.12.2025 made in
CMP.No.28266/2025 in AS.No.153/2014)
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2012 passed in OS No.231 of 2008
by the II Additional District Judge, Salem insofar as rejection of a part of the
suit prayer.
For Appellant(s): Mr. R. Parthasarathy (Senior Advocate)
for Ms.S.Rekha
For Respondent(s): Mr.Prasanth Narayanan for R17 & R18
No appearance – R1 to R16 & R19
_______
Page2 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional
District Court at Salem aggrieved by that portion of the judgment, wherein, the
relief of specific performance was not granted as against the fifth and sixth
defendants has filed the present appeal.
2.The suit in O.S. No.231 of 2008 had been filed by the plaintiff/appellant
herein, V.Thiagarajan seeking a judgment and decree of specific performance
against the 1-6 defendants by directing them to execute a sale deed after making
provisions to discharge the encumbrance of the 7-9 defendants over the suit
properties, failing which, for the Court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the
1-6 defendants and for permanent injunction restraining the 1-6 defendants from
creating or registering any deed in respect of the suit property with respect to
third parties and for costs of the suit.
3.In the plaint, it had been contended that the plaintiff V.Thiagarajan and
the first and second defendants, K.Paramasivam, P.Bhuvaneswari and one
Rangasamy, son of Kandasamy of Kandarkulamanickam Village had entered
into an agreement of sale for the sale of the properties morefully described to
the schedule to the plaint at Rs.3,11,000/- per acre. The terms and conditions of
_______
Page3 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
the agreement were reduced into writing on 06.09.2006. It was stated that the
first and the second defendants and the said Rangasamy received a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as advance from the representative of the plaintiff, Valliappa
Chettiar. The agreement of sale was signed by the said Valliappa Chettiar on
behalf of the plaintiff and by the first and second defendants and by the said
Rangasamy. Rangasamy was the elder brother of the first defendant. The said
property had fallen into the share of the first defendant and the said Rangasamy,
under a compromise decree in a suit for partition in O.S.No.805 of 1992. The
other properties under the agreement were also purchased by the second
defendant. It was also agreed by the parties that the sale deed would be
executed along with the legal heirs in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of the
balance sale consideration on or before 31.10.2006. The first and the second
defendants and the said Rangasamy had also agreed to discharge and clear all
loans and encumbrances over the suit properties before executing the sale deed.
4.It was also contended that the first and second defendants and
Rangasamy received an additional part sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- in
cash on 01.11.2006. They also made entries in the agreement of sale on
21.09.2006 and on 01.11.2006. The time for executing the sale deed was
extended till 31.01.2007. It was contended that efforts were taken by them to
clear the existing debts. The plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and
willing to perform his part of the agreement.
_______
Page4 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
5.Thereafter, the first and second defendants and Rangasamy received a
further advance of Rs.50,000/- on 06.12.2006 and a further sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- by demand draft on 08.12.2006 towards the part repayment of
the existing loan and to settle Indian Overseas Bank which had initiated steps
under the SARFAESI Act to recover dues from the fifth defendant. Necessary
endorsements were also made in the agreement of sale. A further advance of
Rs.5,00,000/- had been paid by demand draft on 28.12.2006 to meet out the
payment to the Indian Overseas Bank. It was contended that yet another
advance of Rs.8,00,000/- was received on 05.01.2007 which entry was also
made in the agreement of sale. It was therefore contended that the first and
second defendants and Rangasamy had received a total sum of Rs.32,00,000/-
towards the sale consideration and had undertaken to execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff along with their sons and daughters.
6.The plaintiff then issued a notice on 27.01.2007, calling upon them to
execute the registered sale deed on 31.01.2007. It was also contended that that
a reply was issued raising false contentions. The plaintiff claims to have waited
for the defendants at the Sub Registrar’s Office on 31.01.2007. In the reply
notice, the first and second defendants and Rangasamy denied the sale
agreement. They sought for a copy of the agreement. Thereafter, they sent a
further reply on 14.02.2007 once again denying the existence of the agreement
_______
Page5 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
and setting up a contention of loan transactions owing to which, they had signed
in blank stamp papers towards security for the repayment of the loan. It was
further contended that K.Rangasamy died intestate leaving behind the third and
fourth respondents as his legal representatives. The fifth and sixth defendants
were the son and daughter of the first and second defendants.
7.It was further stated in the plaint that the fourth defendant sent an
Advocate notice on 13.02.2007 claiming ½ share in the suit property along with
the sixth defendant and stating that he was not connected with the agreement of
sale. The plaintiff issued a reply reiterating the facts. The seventh defendant
then caused a public notice to be issued in the Daily Thanthi Newspaper on
23.12.2006 inviting claims from the general public over the suit properties. It
was stated that the seventh defendant had a claim for recovery of money under a
promissory note and had also obtained a decree against the first defendant in
O.S.No.157 of 2004, on the file of the Fast Track Court, which suit had been
filed seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.5,74,000/- together with subsequent
interest. Thereafter, the eighth defendant also raised a claim under a mortgage
deed. The ninth defendant claimed to be a creditor of the family of the first
defendant and filed a civil suit on the file of the Principal District Court at
Erode and a decree was also passed for a sum of Rs.6,33,555/-. The suit
property was also attached for enforcement of the decree. The plaintiff had also
filed an objection petition before the Sub Registrar, Magudanchavadi on
_______
Page6 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
09.02.2007 preventing the defendants from entering into any agreement. It was
also contended that the 10-12 defendants were subsequent purchasers of the suit
properties. It was under those circumstances, that the suit had been filed
seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006.
8.The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the
second defendant. In his written statement, he stated that he and the third
defendant Rangasamy were brothers and further contended that the fifth and
sixth defendants were not parties to the agreement of sale. They did not receive
any consideration towards the sale of the land. It was further contended that
there was no privity of contract between the third and fourth defendants and the
plaintiff or his father. It was therefore contended that the suit should be
dismissed against the third and fourth defendants. It was contended that these
defendants got divided by an oral partition on 15.12.2007. It was contended
that the 2-4 defendants had entered into an agreement of sale on 16.02.2007 to
sell their property to one A.Sakthivel for Rs.54,69,000/- and had received an
advance of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- and had also put him in
possession. It was contended that there was no cause of action against the sixth
defendant and that the suit should be dismissed.
9.The fifth defendant filed a separate written statement stating that the
plaintiff had not signed the agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006 and that one
_______
Page7 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
Valliappan had signed the sale agreement. It was also stated that this defendant,
namely, the fifth defendant had also not signed the agreement nor in the
endorsement made for alleged receipt of advance sale consideration. The
defendant disclaimed all knowledge about the agreement. Even the advance
sale consideration was not paid to this defendant. It was contended that this
defendant and his sister/sixth defendant were each entitled to an undivided 1/3 rd
share in the properties of their father. It was further contended that these
defendants and the third and the fourth defendants had entered into an
agreement of sale with one A.Sakthivel and had received an advance of
Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- towards the total sale consideration of
Rs.54,69,000/- and had also put the said Sakthivel in possession. It was
contended that the suit against this defendant was not maintainable. It was
therefore claimed that the suit should be dismissed.
10.The seventh defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by
the ninth defendant. In the said written statement, it had been contended that
the agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006 was not binding on the seventh and
ninth defendants. It was further contended that there was no privity of contract
between the plaintiff and these defendants. They were not aware of the loan
obtained by the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants. They were also not
aware about the advance sale consideration received by the other defendants.
They further claimed that they were not liable to make any payment to the bank
_______
Page8 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
as stated in the plaint. They alleged collusion between the plaintiff and the first
and second defendants. They also stated that the plaintiff was never ready and
willing to perform his part of the agreement. They also sought dismissal of the
suit.
11.The tenth defendant filed a written statement again disputing the
agreement of sale said to have been entered into by the plaintiff with the first
and second defendants and one Rangasamy. It had been further stated that this
defendant was the purchaser of three acres of land in S.No.141/5, 80-1/2 cents
in S.No.141/1, 16-1/2 cents of land in S.No.141/2 and 2.55 acres in S.No.140/1
totally 6.52 acres of land each with specified four boundaries along with a Well
in S.No.141/5 of Kandarkula Manickam Village of Sankari Taluk for valuable
consideration. These properties are part of the suit property. The defendant had
purchased the said land from the sixth defendant through her power of attorney,
the second defendant on 02.03.2009 before the filing of the suit under a
registered sale deed. The survey numbers were wrongly given in the sale deed
and therefore, a rectification deed was also registered in the Sub Registrar’s
office at Magudanchavadi. It had also been stated that the vendor had obtained
title by inheritance. It had been further stated that this defendant had sold the
properties purchased along with other properties in the same village to one
Annapoorani Shanmugasundaram Constructions Private Limited, by way of a
registered sale deed dated 26.10.2009 registered at the Sub Registrar office at
Magudanchavadi and the Company had been put in possession and enjoyment
_______
Page9 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
of the said land. It had been stated that these facts were known to the plaintiff
and still he had not impleaded the said Company as a party to the suit. The
defendant stated that the agreement on the basis of which the plaintiff had filed
the suit was a false and fabricated agreement. It was therefore urged that the
suit should be dismissed as against this defendant.
12.The thirteenth defendant filed a written statement questioning and
disputing the agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006 relied on by the plaintiff. All
the averments in the plaint were denied. It had been stated that this defendant
had purchased 50 cents of land in S.No.140/1, 1.75 acres of land in S.No.140/2,
totally 2.25 acres of land with specified four boundaries in Kandarkular
Manickam village at Sankari Taluk for valuable consideration from the third
and fourth defendants on 16.07.2009 under a document registered in the office
of the Sub Registrar, Magudanchavadi. It had been further stated that the
defendant had also purchased 8.12 ½ acres of land from the first and second
defendants for valid consideration again under a registered sale deed dated
16.07.2009 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Magudanchavadi. It
had been stated that the vendors, namely, the first, second, third and fourth
defendants had derived the properties under a compromise decree in O.S.
No.805 of 1982 in the Sub Court, Salem. They had sold the land for urgent
family needs. The vendors of the defendants had also sold the other portions of
the land of the property to the 10-12 defendants. It was stated that this
_______
Page10 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
defendant had sold the land purchased by him to Annapoorani
Shanmugasundaram Constructions Private Limited by a registered sale deed
dated 26.10.2009. This defendant stated that the plaintiff had not impleaded the
subsequent purchaser as a party to the suit. It had been contended that the 1-5
defendants had sold the properties and discharged their debts to third parties and
this defendant had actually paid a sum of Rs.54,69,000/- towards purchase of
the properties. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff had not come to the
Court with correct facts. It was therefore contended that the suit should be
dismissed.
13.On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge had
framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and Rangasamy entered
into a sale agreement in respect of the suit properties?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- towards the sale
consideration on various dates?
(iii) Whether the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the
defendants and the sale agreement will not bind the legal heirs of
defendants 1 and 2?
(iv) Whether the sale agreement will bind the defendants 3,4 and 5,6?
(v) Whether the defendants 7 to 9 are necessary parties to this suit?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract?
_______
Page11 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific
performance after making provision to discharge the
encumbrances of the defendants 7 to 9?
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent
injunction prayed for?
(ix) To what relief, if any the plaintiff is entitled?
14.During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff
C.Valliappa was examined as PW1 and the plaintiff was examined as PW2.
One further witness was examined as PW3. The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to
A23. Ex.A1 was the agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006. Exs.A2 to A8 were
endorsements made for the receipt of further advance sale consideration in
Ex.A1. Exs.A9, A10, A11, A13, A14 & A15 were notices exchanged between
the parties. The communications sent by the Indian Overseas Bank to the fifth
defendant were marked as Exs.A16 and A17. The sale deed in favour of the
tenth defendant was marked as Ex.A23.
15.On the side of the defendants, the first defendant, the fourth defendant
and the tenth defendant were examined as DW1, DW2 and DW3 respectively.
They however did not mark any documents.
_______
Page12 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
16.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial
Judge held with respect to the issue Nos.1 to 4 which revolved around the
agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006 and whether the suit properties were
ancestral properties and will bind the legal representatives of the first and
second defendants and will bind the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants, that
the agreement under Ex.A1 dated 06.09.2006 had been entered into by the
plaintiff and the first and second defendants and Rangasamy. It had been
provided in the agreement that the suit properties belonged to Rangasamy and
the first defendant who were both brothers and who had been allotted the
properties in O.S.No.805 of 1992 and belonged to the second defendant through
purchase. The sale price had been determined at Rs.3,11,000/- per acre. A sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- had been paid as advance. Thereafter, there were further
advances paid of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.
Endorsement in this regard in Ex.A1 had been marked as Exs.A2 to A8. It had
therefore been found that the plaintiff had paid a total sum of Rs.32,00,000/- as
advance sale consideration. It was also found that the plaintiff had issued a
notice under Ex.A9, calling upon the said first and second defendants and
Rangasamy to execute the sale deed. Further notices were exchanged between
the parties. It was noted that the defendants had various loans which had to be
settled before they could effectively execute the sale deed.
_______
Page13 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
17.It was also noted that Ex.A1 agreement of sale had not been signed by
the plaintiff, but by his father and there was no recital in Ex.A1 that his father
was a representative of the plaintiff and had signed Ex.A1 in that capacity.
However, the learned Trial Judge held that the agreement of sale can be
enforced. It had been signed by the vendors and delivered to the purchasers and
had been accepted. It was therefore held that agreement of sale is enforceable
against the signatories of the agreement. It was also noted that PW1, PW2 and
PW3 had clearly spoken about the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale and the
endorsements in Exs.A2 to A8. It was also found that while making
endorsements, they had also affixed their thumb impressions.
18.It was also noted that DW1 K.Paramasivam first defendant was an
Advocate and knew the legal consequences of signing papers and documents.
Therefore, the contentions of the first defendant that he had signed blank papers
were rejected by the Trial Court. It was also noted that it was not open to DW1
to question the endorsements. It was also further noted that DW3 was not a
party to the agreement of sale. He had however purchased the suit properties
after the institution of the suit. He had initiated steps to settle the loans of the
first and second defendants by selling the suit properties to third parties
disregarding the pendency of the suit.
_______
Page14 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
19.It was held that Ex.A1 agreement to sale was true and valid and
supported by consideration as shown by the endorsements in Exs.A2 to A8. The
total extent of the suit properties was 23 acres and 81 cents. It was also noted
that though the total area was not shown, it was evident from the description of
the agreement. It was also reiterated that the agreement was binding on the
signatories to the agreement.
20.It was however found that in Ex.A1 the first defendant and the
deceased Rangasamy who had both signed the agreement did not do so as Karta
of the joint family. There was no recital that there were existing debts making it
necessary for them to enter into the agreement of sale for family necessity. It
was also found that as seen from Ex.A20, decree in O.S.No.805 of 1992,
properties were allotted to each one of the defendants and admittedly, the 3-6
defendants were not parties to the agreement of sale. It was therefore held that
the agreement of sale could not be enforced against the share of the 3-6
defendants. It was held therefore that the agreement could be enforced only in
respect of ½ share of the first defendant in A schedule property, 1/3 rd share of
the deceased Rangasamy in B schedule property and the property purchased by
the second defendant. It had been stated that the agreement cannot be enforced
against the other sharers of the property which fell to the 3-6 defendants. In
view of these reasons, the suit was partly decreed only with respect to the shares
_______
Page15 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
of the first and second defendants and Rangasamy and dismissed with respect to
the shares of the 3-6 defendants.
21.Questioning that judgment and decree, the plaintiff had filed the
present appeal.
22.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant, Mr.Prasanth Narayanan learned counsel for R17&
R18. There was no representation for the other respondents. The 17th and 18th
respondents are subsequent purchasers of the suit properties.
23.Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pointed
out the agreement of sale marked as Ex.A1 dated 06.09.2006 and argued that
the appellant had entered into the said agreement with the first and second
defendants in the suit and the deceased Rangasamy who was the brother of the
first defendant to purchase the suit properties. He pointed out that the suit
properties had been allotted to the first defendant and to his brother Rangasamy
in a suit for partition in O.S.No.805 of 1992, the decree of which had been
marked as Ex.A20. The learned Senior Counsel stated that the other properties
covered under the agreement had been purchased by the second defendant who
was the wife of the first defendant. The learned counsel therefore contended
that the first and second defendants and Rangasamy were absolute owners of the
_______
Page16 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
properties and they have signed in their independent capacity. It was also
pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that more than ample evidence was
recorded to show that 3-6 defendants had incurred debts and particularly, the
fifth defendant had borrowed amounts from the Indian Overseas Bank and
SARFAESI notice had also been issued.
24.The learned Senior Counsel contended that the plaintiff had paid
substantial amounts as advance towards the settlement of the loans and to clear
the property of its encumbrances. The sale consideration had been determined
at Rs.3,11,000/- per acre and the plaintiff had paid a total advance of
Rs.32,00,000/- to the defendants and this fact had been established by the
endorsements made in Ex.A1 under Exs.A2 to A8. The learned Senior Counsel
contended that merely because the properties had been sold by some of the
defendants to other third parties, it would not invalidate the agreement or
extinguish the right of the plaintiff to enforce the agreement. The learned
Senior Counsel argued that the subsequent purchasers who had purchased
portions of the properties pending suit would be bound by the decree.
25.In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel placed specific reliance
on the following passages of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dastagirsab Vs. Sharanappa alias Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs.
and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1983.
_______
Page17 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
11. Right of a Karta to sell joint family
property is well settled. Karta enjoys wide
discretion with regard to existence of legal
necessity and in what way such necessity can be
fulfilled. Whether legal necessity existed justifying
the sale would depend on facts of each case. In
Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy v. V. Manjunath,
this Court succinctly elucidated:
“6. Right of the Karta to execute agreement to
sell or sale deed of a joint Hindu family property is
settled and is beyond cavil vide several judgments of
this Court including Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar,
(1996) 8 SCC 54], wherein it has been held that a joint
Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or
adult member of the family in management of the joint
Hindu family property. A coparcener who has right to
claim a share in the joint Hindu family estate cannot
seek injunction against the Karta restraining him from
dealing with or entering into a transaction from sale of
the joint Hindu family property, albeit post alienation
has a right to challenge the alienation if the same is
not for legal necessity or for betterment of the estate.
Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family
property for value either for legal necessity or benefit
of the estate it would bind the interest of all undivided
members of the family even when they are minors or
widows. There are no specific grounds that establish
the existence of legal necessity and the existence of
legal necessity depends upon facts of each case. The
_______
Page18 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
Karta enjoys wide discretion in his decision over
existence of legal necessity. and as to in what way such
necessity can be fulfilled. The exercise of powers given
the rights of the Karta on fulfilling the requirement of
legal necessity or betterment of the estate is valid and
binding on other coparceners.
7. Elucidating the position in Hindu law, this
Court in Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur, (2018) 14
SCC 445 has referred to Mulla on Hindu Law and the
concept of legal necessity to observe thus: (SCC pp.
449-51, paras 20-21 & 26)
“20. Mulla in his classic work Hindu Law while
dealing with the right of a father to alienate any
ancestral property said in Article 254, which reads as
under:
‘Article 254
254. Alienation by father.-A Hindu father as
such has special powers of alienating coparcenary
property, which no other coparcener has. In the
exercise of these powers he may:
(1) make a gift of ancestral movable property to
the extent mentioned in Article 223, and even of
ancestral immovable property to the extent mentioned
in Article 224;
(2) sell or mortgage ancestral property, whether
movable or immovable, including the interest of his_______
Page19 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014sons, grandsons and great-grandsons therein, for the
payment of his own debt, provided the debt was an
antecedent debt, and was not incurred for immoral or
illegal purposes (Article 294).’
21. What is legal necessity was also succinctly
said by Mulla in Article 241, which reads as under:
‘Article 241
241. What is legal necessity.- The following
have been held to be family necessities within the
meaning of Article 240:
(a) payment of government revenue and of debts which
are payable out of the family property;
(b) maintenance of coparceners and of the members of
their families;
(c) marriage expenses of male coparceners, and of the
daughters of coparceners;
(d) performance of the necessary funeral or family
ceremonies;
(e) costs of necessary litigation in recovering or
preserving the estate;
(f) costs of defending the head of the joint family or any
other member against a serious criminal charge;
(g) payment of debts incurred for family business or
_______
Page20 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014other necessary purpose. In the case of a manager
other than a father, it is not enough to show merely
that the debt is a pre-existing debt;
The above are not the only indices for concluding as to
whether the alienation was indeed for legal necessity,
nor can the enumeration of criterion for establishing
legal necessity be copious or even predictable. It must
therefore depend on the facts of each case. When,
therefore, property is sold in order to fulfil tax
obligations incurred by a family business, such
alienation can be classified as constituting legal
necessity.’
(See Hindu Law by Mulla “22 nd Edition”.)
***
26. Once the factum of existence of legal
necessity stood proved, then, in our view, no co-
coparcener (son) has a right to challenge the sale
made by the karta of his family. The plaintiff being a
son was one of the co-coparceners along with his
father Pritam Singh. He had no right to challenge such
sale in the light of findings of legal necessity being
recorded against him. It was more so when the plaintiff
failed to prove by any evidence that there was no legal
necessity for sale of the suit land or that the evidence
adduced by the defendants to prove the factum of
existence of legal necessity was either insufficient or
irrelevant or no evidence at all.”
12. Plaintiff co-parcener has assailed the
sale transaction undertaken by 1st defendant-Karta
_______
Page21 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
on the ground it was not made for legal necessity
but to meet his expensive and wasteful habits.
Evidence has come on record 1st defendant-Karta
had previously sold various properties of the HUF.
Though it is the plaintiff’s case that such sales were
not for legal necessities, he has not challenged any
of these transactions. To justify his present claim,
the plaintiff asserts the 1st defendant assured him
money derived from such sales would be settled in
favour of the sons including the plaintiff and that
no other properties would be sold. It is further the
plaintiff’s case, no money was settled in his favour
or that of the 2nd defendant but substantial sums
were settled in favour of 3 rd and 4 th defendant.
Though the plaintiff alleges 1 st defendant acted in
a biased and unfair manner, admittedly the
plaintiff has not taken any steps for recovery of
such outstanding dues earlier or even in the
present suit.
13. In view of such conduct, the Trial Court
rightly inferred the earlier sale transactions of
HUF properties were for financial needs and the
plea that the previous HUF assets were disposed of
to meet the Karta’s extravagant habits was an
afterthought.
14. With regard to the sale of the suit land to
5th defendant, the Trial Court noted that during
_______
Page22 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
cross-examination the plaintiff admitted his father
had informed him that the property had been sold
to meet family needs. High Court completely
glossed over this fact and reversed the finding on a
specious logic that the sale of the suit land for
Kashibai’s marriage was improbable as the
marriage had already taken place prior to the sale
in question.
26.Pointing out that the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family had a right to sell
the property, the learned Senior Counsel argued that even if it were to be
assumed that the first defendant and Rangasamy were deemed to be the Kartas
of their respective families, the agreement of sale entered into by them, would
bind the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants. The learned Senior Counsel
stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had very clearly stated in the
aforementioned judgment that the Karta had a right to sell the joint family
property.
27.The learned Senior Counsel stated that the property had been
admittedly allotted to the first defendant and to Rangasamy under a partition
suit in O.S.No.805 of 1992 and therefore, the suit properties could be dealt by
them on their behalf and on behalf of their legal representatives/co-sharers in
the Joint Hindu Family. It was also noted by the learned Senior Counsel that
the second defendant had independently purchased portions of the suit
properties which were governed under the agreement of sale. The learned
_______
Page23 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
Senior Counsel therefore assailed the reasonings of the Trial Court that the
agreement would not bind 3-6 defendants. The learned Senior Counsel therefore
urged that this Court should set aside that findings of the Trial Court and decree
the suit in entirety.
28.The learned counsel for the 17th and 18th respondents however disputed
this contention. According to him, the properties had been sold again and again
to other defendants and there had been subsequent transactions even during the
pendency of the suit. The plaintiff had kept quiet when these transactions had
taken place. The learned counsel pointed out that there was a duty on the part
of the plaintiff to seek injunction restraining further alienations. The learned
counsel argued that the plaintiff/appellant should have filed an application if
there were further transactions that they could be done only by obtaining leave
of the Court. The learned counsel pointed out that Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act provided that an agreement holder would not have any right or
interest over the property. The title holder of the property would always be at
liberty to deal with the property.
29.The learned counsel pointed out that the subsequent sale deeds have
not been sought to be set aside by the plaintiff. They have been also executed
for valid sale consideration. He very specifically pointed out that the third,
_______
Page24 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
fourth, fifth and six defendants were entitled to independent shares on and from
the date of their birth. The first defendant or deceased Rangasamy had no right
to act on their behalf since they had attained the age of majority and were
capable of dealing with their shares. The Karta can act on behalf of a minor, but
not on behalf of co-parceners who had attained the age of majority.
30.The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna Vs. Shankar and Others reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 877 and more particularly to paragraph No.17, wherein, it had
been held as follows:
17. It cannot be disputed that the properties divided
among Defendant No.1 and his brothers through
partition deed dated 09.05.1986, are joint family
properties. However, as per Hindu law, after partition,
each party gets a separate and distinct share and this
share becomes their self-acquired property and they
have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer,
or bequeath it as they wish. Accordingly, the properties
bequeathed through partition, become the self- acquired
properties of the respective sharers.
31.Placing reliance on the dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
learned counsel stated that the Trial Judge had correctly dismissed the suit
_______
Page25 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
against 3-6 defendants who were the earlier/erstwhile owners/vendors of the
property and after several transactions, the property had devolved on to the 16 th
& 17th respondents.
32.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
material records.
33.The following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the agreement of sale entered into
by the first defendant and his brother Rangasamy
would bind their legal heirs/3-6 defendants?
(ii) Whether the agreement of sale entered into
by a Karta of the joint family would be binding on
other Co-Parceners who had attained the age of
majority?
(iii)Whether the agreement of sale would be
binding on the 3-6 defendants?
34.Since the evidence adduced overlap, all the three points are taken up
for discussion and determination together.
35.The appellant had entered into an agreement of sale on 06.09.2006 to
purchase the land described in the plaint from the first defendant and his brother
_______
Page26 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
Rangasamy who had been allotted shares under Ex.A20, partition decree in
O.S.No.805 of 1992, on the file of the Sub Court at Salem. There were other
properties in the agreement of sale. They had been purchased by the second
defendant who was the wife of the first defendant. There is no covenant in the
agreement of sale that the first defendant and Rangasamy had entered into the
agreement of sale as Karta of a Joint Hindu Family. There is no dispute about
the agreement which has been marked as Ex.A1. There is no dispute over the
advance sale consideration received which receipts were marked as Exs.A2 to
A8. However, even during the pendency of the suit, the suit properties had been
dealt with by 3-6 defendants. They had sold the properties to the 10 th defendant
and subsequently also to the 13th defendant. The said defendants had also taken
possession of the properties. The properties had been further sold and the 16-18
defendants had also purchased the properties. There is no relief sought in the
plaint to declare that these sale deeds are null and void.
36.The Trial Judge had held that since the properties had devolved under
partition, definite shares had been allotted to 3-6 defendants. In this connection,
the learned Trial Judge had noted that the said defendants were not signatories
to the sale agreement.
_______
Page27 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
37.It is also seen from Ex.A1 that quite apart from their being no recital
that the agreement of sale had been entered by the first defendant and by the
brother Rangasamy as Kartas of their respective Joint Hindu Families, there was
also no recital about the existing debts and that therefore the agreement of sale
had been entered into by them. There was no recital that the agreement of sale
had been entered into by them out of family necessity.
38.Ex.A20 is the decree in O.S.No.805 of 1992. That was a partition suit
filed by the first and fifth defendants against the deceased Rangasamy and third
and fourth defendants. It is thus seen that the suit was not only between the first
defendant and the deceased Rangasamy, but also the parties to the suit were the
fifth defendant as plaintiff and the third and fourth defendants as defendants. In
that particular suit, the A Schedule properties as described in that suit were
allotted to the first and fifth defendants and the B Schedule properties as
described in that suit were allotted to Rangasamy and to the third and fourth
defendants. It is thus seen that in the A schedule properties in that suit, the fifth
defendant had an undivided ½ share. Similarly, in the B schedule properties in
that suit, the third and fourth defendants were each entitled to an undivided 1/3 rd
share along with Rangasamy. These defendants were not parties to the
agreement of sale. They had independent shares.
_______
Page28 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
39.It can therefore never be stated that the first defendant and Rangasamy
were Kartas of their Joint Hindu Families. They had an independent share and
the third, fourth and fifth defendants had independent shares allotted to them.
40.The dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna
referred supra reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 877 is therefore directly
applicable, since, when separate and distinct shares are allotted in a partition,
then such shares become an acquired property and the allottees have absolute
rights over the said shares.
41.As a matter of fact, the properties which had been allotted to the first
defendant and to the fifth defendant had been separately given and the
properties allotted to Rangasamy and third and fourth defendants had been
separately given. It is thus seen that the properties are independent and distinct.
There were two separate branches, namely, that of the first defendant and the
fifth defendant and that of Rangasamy and the third and fourth defendants. The
first, second, fifth and sixth defendants and also the third and fourth defendants
had conveyed various portions of the suit schedule properties to third parties,
namely, 10-13 defendants. Subsequently, 10-13 defendants have sold various
portions of the suit properties to the 16-19th defendants. These facts have been
stated in the written statement also. There was no relief sought that these sale
_______
Page29 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
deeds are null and void. There are no pleadings that these sale deeds are not
binding on the plaintiff. We therefore hold that the agreement of sale had not
been entered into by the first defendant and Rangasamy as Kartas of their
respective Joint Hindu Families. The agreement of sale can bind only to their
shares and not the shares of the 3-5 defendants.
42.We answer the points framed for consideration accordingly.
43.In view of these reasons, we hold that the learned Trial Judge had
come to a correct conclusion that specific performance cannot be granted on the
shares of 3-6 defendants. We find no infirmity in the said reasoning.
44.In view of the above, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed confirming the
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
20.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
sli
_______
Page30 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
To
The II Additional District Court,
Salem.
_______
Page31 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 153 of 2014
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
sli
Pre-delivery Judgment in
AS No. 153 of 2014 and
CMP No.28262 of 2025
20-04-2026
_______
Page32 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
