Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Angadi Chandranna – Appellant
Versus
Shankar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 6799 of 2022]
Decided On : 22-04-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 100 and 103 – Second Appeal – Scope and ambit – High Court can go into findings of facts only if First Appellate Court has failed to look into law or evidence or considered inadmissible evidence or without evidence – Section 103 permits High Court to go into facts only when courts below have not determined or rendered any finding on a crucial fact, despite evidence already available on record or after deciding substantial question of law, facts of a particular case demand re-determination – For second limb of Section 103 to apply, there must first be a decision on substantial question of law, to which facts must be applied, to determine issue in dispute – When First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has considered entire evidence and rendered a finding, High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence just because another view is possible, when view taken by First Appellate Court is plausible and does not suffer from vice in law – When determination of High Court is only by way of re-appreciation of existing evidence, without there being any legal question to be answered, it would be axiomatic that not even a question of law is involved, much less a substantial one. (Para 12.1)
(B) Hindu Law – Partition – There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family – One who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family property – If, however, person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which joint family property could be acquired, then there would be presumption of property being joint and onus would shift on person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available – That apart, while considering term ‘nucleus’ it should always be borne in mind that such nucleus has to be established as a matter of fact and existence of such nucleus cannot normally be presumed or assumed on probabilities. (Para 13)
(C) Hindu Law – Partition – Ancestral Property – In Hindu law, for a property to be considered as an ancestral property, it has to be inherited from any of paternal ancestors up to three generations – After joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family properties and shares of respective parties become their self-acquired properties – In present case, intention of parties and recitals in partition deed establish that parties wanted to go their separate ways and did not want property to remain as joint family property – Contents in a document would prevail over any contrary oral evidence – Suit property acquired by Defendant No. 1 became his self-acquired property, on being sold by his brother to him. (Paras 14, 18 and 19)
(D) Hindu Law – Coparcenary Property – Rights of Karta – When income derived from joint family property or when a joint family property is sold and sale consideration is utilised for maintenance and education within joint family, same are to be treated as out of necessity as it is duty of every Kartha to do so – It is sufficient to satisfy legal necessity if Kartha had sold property and used funds for upbringing of children – That apart, under customary practices and tradition in this country, it is father who performs marriage of his children and expenses incurred for that purposes are also to be treated as expenses out of necessity. (Para 19.1)
(E) Hindu Law – Coparcenary Property – Doctrine of blending of self-acquired property with joint family – Property, separate or self-acquired, of a member of joint Hindu family may be impressed with character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by owner into common stock with intention of abandoning his separate claim therein – But to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established – From mere fact that other members of family were allowed to use property jointly with himself, or that income of separate property was utilized out of generosity to support persons whom holder was either bound or not bound to support, or from failure to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness, will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation – Plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to show that property received through Will, blended with joint family properties and that income was received from that property, which was utilized to purchase suit property – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside and judgment and decree of First Appellate Court restored. (Paras 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
By impugned order, High Court allowed Regular Second Appeal thereby setting aside judgment and decree dated 21.02.2006 passed by First Appellate Court in Regular Appeal No. 291 of 2002 and affirming judgment and decree dated 21.12.2001 passed by Trial Court in O.S. No. 169 of 1994.
Findings of Court:
High Court erroneously applied doctrine of blending under Hindu joint family law by relying upon judgments that are not applicable to the case on hand, re-appreciated evidence without framing any substantial question of law and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. This is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points summarized:
Once joint family property has been lawfully distributed, it ceases to be joint family property, and the shares of the respective parties become their self-acquired properties. (!)
The doctrine of blending self-acquired property with joint family property requires voluntary action by the owner with the clear intention of abandoning separate rights. To establish such abandonment, a clear and unequivocal intention to waive separate rights must be proven. (!) (!)
There is no presumption that a property is joint family property solely because of the existence of a joint Hindu family. The party asserting that a property is joint family property must prove it. If a nucleus or common fund is established, the burden shifts to the claimant to prove the property was purchased with separate funds. The existence of such a nucleus must be established as a matter of fact and cannot be presumed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
For a property to be considered ancestral, it must be inherited from paternal ancestors up to three generations. After distribution through lawful partition, the property shares become self-acquired, and the intention of the parties as expressed in the partition deed is crucial. If the partition indicates a clear intention to go separate ways, the property is no longer joint family property. (!) (!) (!)
The character of the property (whether joint or self-acquired) is a question of fact, which requires clear proof. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming joint ownership, and the proof must establish the existence of a nucleus or joint fund if such a presumption is to be made. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
The sale of property by a Karta for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family is valid, and expenses for family events such as marriage are considered out of necessity. The sale deed’s contents take precedence over oral evidence, and such transactions are presumed to be for legitimate purposes unless proven otherwise. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The courts must carefully analyze the evidence to determine whether the property was acquired using joint family funds or through self-acquisition. The mere assertion of joint funds is insufficient unless supported by concrete evidence demonstrating the source of funds. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The scope of appellate jurisdiction is limited. The High Court should not re-appreciate evidence or re-examine factual findings unless there is a failure to consider law, inadmissible evidence, or no evidence at all. The High Court's interference is only justified when a substantial question of law arises, which is not merely a question of fact or a re-interpretation of evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The existence of a joint Hindu family does not automatically presume property to be joint family property; proof is necessary. When asserting joint ownership, the claimant must establish the presence of a nucleus or joint fund as the basis for such presumption. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
The intention behind the acquisition or transfer of property is critical. Clear evidence of the owner’s intention to treat the property as self-acquired or joint family property must be established. Acts done out of kindness or generosity do not constitute an abandonment of separate rights. (!) (!) (!)
After a lawful partition, the properties allotted to each member become their self-acquired properties, and subsequent dealings with these properties are governed by their individual rights, unless clear evidence suggests otherwise. (!) (!)
The burden of proof and the nature of evidence required are strict: proof of joint funds, nucleus, or intention must be established as a matter of fact, not inferred from probabilities or acts of kindness. (!) (!) (!) (!)
These points encapsulate the legal principles and findings relevant to property law, partition, and inheritance as discussed in the document.
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the purchaser of a property bearing Sy. No. 93 measuring 7 acres 20 guntas situated at Mahadevapura Village, Parashurampura Hobli, Challakere Taluk1 [For short "the suit property"] He has come up with the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru2 [Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"] in Regular Second Appeal No. 1417 of 2006. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Challakere3 [Hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court”] in Regular Appeal No. 291 of 2002 and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Challakere4 [Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”] in O.S. No. 169 of 1994.
3. The appellant herein is Defendant No. 2 and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are the sons and daughters of Defendant No. 1 (C. Jayaramappa), are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the aforesaid suit.
4. Defendant No. 1 and his two brothers viz. C. Thippeswamy and C. Eshwarappa, after the death of their father and uncle, who was issueless, divided the joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 09.05.1986. Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 purchased the suit property from his elder brother C. Thippeswamy by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1989. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 sold the suit property to Defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 11.03.1993.
5. When the facts stood thus, the plaintiffs had instituted a suit bearing O.S. No. 169 of 1994 before the trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of the suit property. After due trial, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2001, decreed the suit as prayed for, by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds through revenue authorities. Challenging the same, Defendant No. 2 moved Regular Appeal bearing No. 291 of 2002. The First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2006, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed Regular Second Appeal No. 1417 of 2006 which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was set aside by the High Court, by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2021. Therefore, Defendant No. 2 is before us with the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Defendant No. 2, at the outset, contended that the question of law framed by the High Court for adjudication, is a pure question of fact, which cannot be framed or decided while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Jaichand (Dead) through LRs. and Others vs. Sahnulal and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3864 and Gurnam Singh (Dead) by LRs. and Others vs. Lehna Singh (Dead) by LRs., (2019) 7 SCC 641.
6.1. According to the learned counsel, the joint family property was partitioned in the year 1986; subsequently, one of the brothers, Thippeswamy, sold his share i.e. the suit property to Defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 16.10.1989 and thereafter, Defendant No. 1 sold the suit property to Defendant No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 11.03.1993. The evidence adduced by Defendant No. 2 would clearly show that the suit property was purchased by Defendant No. 1 using his own funds and loan obtained from DW-3 Narasimhamurthy and hence, the same should be considered as self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1. As such, at the time of sale, the suit property was no longer a part of joint family property. Considering the said aspect, the Fir
(1) Hindu Law – Partition – After joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family properties and shares of respective parties become their self-acquire....
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
A claimant must prove the ancestral nature of properties to claim entitlement under the amended Hindu Succession Act; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
Proof of a joint family property requires demonstration of a nucleus to substantiate claims; mere assertion without evidence is insufficient.
The court affirmed that property treated as joint family property entitles the plaintiff to a 1/3rd share, ruling against the validity of a unilateral settlement deed.
A claim for partition must be substantiated by evidence of ancestral property status or blending with joint family property, which was not proven in this case.
The court reaffirmed that property originally purchased individually can be treated as joint family property when members act collectively and share resources, affecting rights associated with subseq....
A plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to establish joint family ownership in partition cases; lack of such evidence leads to dismissal of claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
