Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (Supreme Court, 1 July 2019)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court decided whether the land in Punjab was coparcenary or self-acquired, and if Dharam Singh’s two 1999 sale deeds were valid. Because succession in this family opened before 1956, the land kept its coparcenary character. When Arshnoor Singh was born in 1985, he got a birthright share. The sales failed: there was no consideration and no legal necessity. The trial court decree was restored.

Issues

• Was the suit land coparcenary property or Dharam Singh’s self-acquired property?
• Were the two sale deeds dated 01-09-1999 valid, and what about the onward sale by Respondent No. 1 to Respondents 2 & 3?

Rules

• Pre-1956 succession → Mitakshara applies: Property devolving before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 retains coparcenary character through male lineage up to three degrees.
• Post-1956 shift: Self-acquired property inherited from paternal ancestors after 1956 is generally the individual’s own, not coparcenary.
• Karta’s power to alienate: Sale of coparcenary property must be for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. Alienee bears the burden to prove necessity.

Facts (Timeline)

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the property retained its coparcenary nature. On his birth, Arshnoor became a coparcener. The Karta’s power to sell is tightly limited to legal necessity or benefit of the estate. Here, evidence showed no consideration and no necessity. The 1999 sale deeds were invalid. Appeals were allowed; the trial court’s decree was restored.

Ratio

• Pre-1956 succession preserves coparcenary character through generations, even after intra-family division.
• A Karta cannot alienate coparcenary property without necessity or benefit; alienee must prove it.
• Uttam distinguished: its rule applies when succession opens after 1956.

Why It Matters

• Clarifies when land keeps coparcenary status across generations.
• Protects birthright shares of children in joint family property.
• Reinforces strict proof of legal necessity for alienations by Karta.

Key Takeaways

• Because succession opened in 1951, the land stayed coparcenary.
• Arshnoor gained a share by birth (1985).
• 1999 sales failed for no consideration and no legal necessity.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Pre-’56? Birthright Sticks.”

1. Pre-1956 succession → coparcenary continues.
2. Birth of coparcener → instant share.
3. Sale? Needs necessity—or it fails.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Coparcenary

A smaller unit of a Hindu joint family where members acquire rights by birth.

Karta

Manager of the coparcenary; can alienate property only for necessity or estate benefit.

Legal Necessity

Compelling need (e.g., debts, marriage expenses, essential maintenance) that justifies alienation.

FAQs

Related Cases