IMPORTANT POINTS
Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below not involving any question of law, and not against pleadings and not perverse are binding on the Supreme Court.
In absence of any proof to the contrary, every Hindu family is presumed to be joint in food, worship and estate.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Judicial discipline – Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below not involving any question of law – Findings not against pleadings and not perverse – Binding on Supreme Court. (Para 17, 18)
       (b) Hindu law – Presumption of jointness – In absence of any proof to the contrary, every Hindu family is presumed to be joint in food, worship and estate – Burden of proof lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property. (Para 22)
       (c) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Plaintiffs failing to prove their main case set up in the plaint – Any alternative submission cannot be accepted. (Para 28)
       Facts of the case:
       The dispute is between the members of one family, i.e., uncle, aunt and nephews. It pertains to ownership and partition of agricultural lands.
       Adiveppa was the head of the family. He married to Yamanavva. Out of the wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born, namely, Hanamappa, Bhimappa and Gundavva. Hanamappa had two sons, namely, Adiveppa and Yamanappa.
       Adiveppa -the head of family owned several acres of agricultural land. He died intestate. The dispute started between the two sons of Hanamappa and their uncle-Bhimappa and Aunt-Gundavva after the death of Adiveppa and Hanamappa. The disputes were regarding ownership and extent of the shares held by each of them in the agricultural lands.
       Adiveppa and Yamanappa (appellants herein) filed a suit against -Bhimappa and Gundavva (respondents herein) and sought declaration and partition in relation to the suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’.
       The Trial Court dismissed the suit.
       The High Court dismissed the appeal.
       Finding of the Court:
       Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below not involving any question of law, and not against pleadings and not perverse are binding on the Supreme Court.
       Result:
       Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad, in RFA No. 1793 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot in O.S. No.85 of 2001.

3) In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts.

4) The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the defendants in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.

5) The dispute is between the members of one family, i.e., uncle, aunt and nephews. It pertains to ownership and partition of agricultural lands.

6) In order to understand the dispute between the parties, family tree of the parties needs to be mentioned hereinbelow:

GENEALOGICAL TREE
Adiveppa (Died about 3—35 years back)
Yamanavva (Died about 10 years back)
Adiveppa
Yamanavva (Wife)

Hanamappa

Gundavva (Son – Died 6 years ago)

(Daughter-Defendant No.2)

Bhimappa

(Son – Defendant No.1)

Mangalavva

(Wife – Plaintiff No.3)

Adiveppa

( Son -Plaintiff No.1)

Yamanappa

(Son -Plaintiff No.2)

7) As would be clear from the family tree, Adiveppa was the head of the family. He married to Yamanavva. Out of the wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born, namely, Hanamappa, Bhimappa and Gundavva. Hanamappa had two sons, namely, Adiveppa and Yamanappa.

8) Adiveppa -the head of family owned several acres of agricultural land. He died intestate. The dispute started between the two sons of Hanamappa and their uncle-Bhimappa and Aunt-Gundavva after the death of Adiveppa and Hanamappa. The disputes were regarding ownership and extent of the shares held by each of them in the agricultural lands.

9) Adiveppa and Yamanappa (appellants herein) filed a suit (O. S. No.85 of 2001) against -Bhimappa and Gundavva (respondents herein) and sought declaration and partition in relation to the suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’.

10) The declaration was sought in relation to the suit properties in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ that these properties be declared as plaintiffs’ self-acquired properties.

11) So far as the properties specified in Schedule ‘D’ were concerned, it was alleged that these properties were ancestral and hence the plaintiffs have 4/9th share in them as members of the family. It was alleged that since so far partition has not taken place by meets and bound amongst the family members, the suit to seek for partition.

12) The respondents (defendants) denied the plaintiffs’ claim and averred inter alia that the entire suit properties comprising in Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ were ancestral properties. It was alleged that during the lifetime of Hanamappa, oral partition had taken place amongst the family members on 28.10.1993 in relation to the entire suit properties (Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’), pursuant to which all family members were placed in possession of their respective shares. It was alleged that the partition was acted upon by all the family members including the plaintiffs’ father (Hanamappa) without any objection from any member. It is on these averments, the respondents contended that the plaintiffs’ claim was misconceived.

13) The Trial Court framed the issues and parties adduced their evidence. By judgment/decree dated 15.07.2006, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. It was held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the suit properties specified in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ to be their self-acquired properties. It was also held that so far as the properties specified in schedule ‘D’ are concerned, though they were ancestral but were partitioned long back pursuant to which, the plaintiffs through their father-Hanamappa got their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 907

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.Adiveppa & Ors. – Appellant(s) VERSUSBhimappa & Anr. – Respondent(s) CIVIL APPEAL No. 11220 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.5664/2012) Decided On : 06-09-2017

IMPORTANT POINTSConcurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below not involving any question of law, and not against pleadings and not perverse are binding on the Supreme Court.In absence of any proof to the contrary, every Hindu family is presumed to be joint in food, worship and estate.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Adiveppa & Ors. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Bhimappa & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No. 11220 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.5664/2012)
Decided On : 06-09-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below not involving any question of law, and not against pleadings and not perverse are binding on the Supreme Court.
In absence of any proof to the contrary, every Hindu family is presumed to be joint in food, worship and estate.