Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan (AIR 2002 Raj. 370)
Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Location: India | Published: 31 Oct 2025
Primary: Antecedent Debt; Legal Necessity; Child Marriage Expense; Joint Hindu Family | Secondary: Karta; Mortgage; Sale Deed Void; Public Policy; Benefit of Estate
Quick Summary
This case deals with a sale of joint Hindu family houses. The family head (karta) first mortgaged the houses. Then he sold them for low value. He said he needed money to marry his minor daughters and to cover earlier mortgages.
The Rajasthan High Court held that money taken for a child marriage is not a legal necessity. It is against public policy. The Court also held the borrowings were not antecedent debts, as they were part of the same chain. So, the mortgages and sale were not binding on the minors. The plaintiffs succeeded.
Issues
Rules
- Antecedent debt must be independent in fact and in time. A borrowing at the time of a mortgage is not antecedent debt.
- The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 makes child marriage punishable. Funding such marriage is against public policy; it is not legal necessity.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant
- Debts were for marriage and to meet earlier mortgages.
- Hence, there was legal necessity.
- Alienations should bind the family, including minors.
Respondents
- Marriage was of minors; law restrains such marriages.
- Borrowings were tied to the same transactions; not antecedent.
- Sale was at gross undervalue and under influence.
Judgment
- No legal necessity: Child marriage expenses are against public policy under the 1929 Act. They cannot justify alienation.
- No antecedent debt: The borrowings were not independent in fact or time; they were part of the impugned transactions.
- Not binding on minors: Mortgages and sale deeds are voidable/void as against the minors; plaintiffs can challenge them.
- Result: Second appeal fails; decrees in favour of plaintiffs stand.
Ratio
Debt for a child marriage is not legal necessity. Alienations for such purpose cannot bind minors. Antecedent debt must exist independently and prior in time; borrowings tied to the mortgage/sale are not antecedent.
Why It Matters
- Protects minors’ shares: Karta’s power is checked by legal necessity and benefit to estate.
- Clarifies antecedent debt: Independence in fact/time is mandatory.
- Public policy line: Courts will not support transactions funding prohibited acts.
Key Takeaways
Child marriage expenses cannot justify alienation of JHF property.
Debt must be independent and prior in time to be antecedent.
Transactions not for necessity do not bind minors.
Buyers must verify necessity/benefit to estate before purchase.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “No-Child, No-Need, No-Title.”
- No-Child: Child marriage = prohibited → against public policy.
- No-Need: So, no legal necessity to alienate property.
- No-Title: Buyers get no binding title against minors.
IRAC
Issue: Can debts for marrying a minor and for linked mortgages justify sale of JHF property?
Rule: Legal necessity/benefit to estate needed; antecedent debt must be independent and prior. Child marriage costs are against public policy.
Application: Borrowings were part of the same chain; not antecedent. Purpose was child marriage → illegal purpose. No necessity shown.
Conclusion: Mortgages and sale not binding on minors; suits rightly decreed for plaintiffs.
Glossary
- Antecedent Debt
- Debt independent of and prior in time to the challenged transaction.
- Legal Necessity
- Need that justifies a karta’s alienation to protect or benefit the estate.
- Public Policy
- Principle that courts will not support acts contrary to law or morals.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now