Back
2011 Supreme(UK) 484
2011 (2) UAD 522
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu
Civil Appeal No. 3495 of 2001
MARABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
NINGAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 08.09.2011
For the Respondents:Mr. Gireesh Kumar (for Khwairakpam Nobin Singh), Mr. M.A. Chinasamy and Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Advocates
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sec. 14 — Mandate of — Held that any property of a female Hindu is her absolute property — And she, therefore, has full ownership — Explanation — It further clarifies that a Hindu woman has full ownership over any property, that she has acquired on her own or as stridhana — As a consequence, she may dispose of the same as per her wish — And that the same shall not be treated as a part of the joint Hindu family property. (Paras 18, 21)
(B) Joint Hindu Property — There is no presumption that of joint family property — And there must be some strong evidence in favour of the same — On the evidence if it is established that the property was joint Hindu family and the other properties were acquired out of that nucleus — If the initial burden is discharged by the person who claims joint Hindu family, then the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property by cogent and necessary evidence. (Para 22)
¼v½ fgUnq mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 14 dk vkns'k & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd fdlh fgUnq efgyk dh lEifÙk mldh lEiw.kZ lEifÙk gksrh gS vkSj blhfy, ml dk iw.kZ LokfeRo gksrk gS & Li"Vhdj.k & bl esa vkxs Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd fdlh Hkh fgUnq efgyk dk ,slh lEifÙk ij iw.kZ LokfeRo gksrk gS ftls mlus Lo;a Ø; fd;k gS vFkok og L=h/ku ds :i esa gS & ifj.kke Lo:i og mls rc foØ; dj ldrh gS tc Hkh og pkgs & vkSj mls la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj dh lEifÙk ugha ekuk tk,xkA ¼izLrj 18] 21½
¼c½ la;qDr fgUnq lEifÙk & la;qDr ifjokj lEifÙk dh dksbZ dYiuk ugha dh tkrh cfYd ml dh iqf"V esa iq[rk lcwr gksuk pkfg, & ;fn lcwr ds vk/kkj ij ;g fl) gks tkrk gS fd lEifÙk la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj dh Fkh vkSj vU; lEifÙk;k¡ mlh ds vk/kkj ij Ø; dh xbZ Fkh rks ;fn la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj dh lEifÙk dk nkok djus okys dk izkjafHkd Hkkj iw.kZ gks tkrk gS rks fl) fd;s tkus dk Hkkj ml O;fDr ij LFkkukUrfjr gks tkrk gS tks ml lEifÙk dks Lo;a dh Ø; dh tkuh crkrk gS vkSj og mls fcuk la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifÙk dh lgk;rk ls Ø; fd;s tkus dks vko';d vkSj Bksl lcwr ds vk/kkj ij fl) djsxkA ¼izLrj 22½
H.L. Dattu, J. — This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, dated 30th March 1999 in R.F.A. No. 385 of 1993, R.F.A. No. 258 (sic.) of 1994 and R.F.A. No. 775 of 1995 (sic.), wherein the High Court has modified the Decree of the Trial Court and has held that the properties described in ‘A’ Schedule to the suit are joint family properties and the parties to the suit are entitled for 1/3rd share in those properties. The other observations and directions of the Court is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
2. The question that is contested by the parties and has fallen for our consideration is whether the properties in dispute are the personal acquisitions of Parwatevva, or, as held by the High Court, a part of the joint family property.
3. The factual matrix in brief is as follows :-
Siddappa and Parwatevva got married in 1924 and at the time of the marriage, the father of Parwatevva gifted her land in Survey No. R.S. No. 271/1 measuring 8 Acres 16 Guntas under registered Gift Deed dated 30th April 1924 [“A7”]. Siddappa, after his marriage, continued to reside in his in-laws house. During his life time, Siddappa had no other source of income except from the tenanted lands which was only a small extent and was totally dry lands. Parwatevva purchased lands in R.S. No. 91 measuring 19 Acres 13 Guntas under a registered Sale Deed from the income of the land that was gifted to her by her father on 5th October, 1944 [A(4) – A(6)]. Thereafter, on 2nd June, 1951, with the income from the above two lands, Parwatevva purchased another land being R.S. No. 143 measuring 28 Acres 23 Guntas [A(8)-A(12)]. Siddappa died in the year 1951. The couple had four sons and one daughter-Marabasappa (appellant-defendant), Ningappa (respondent-plaintiff), Bhimappa (deceased-legal heirs are on record), Sangawwa and Channappa (pre-deceased without any heirs).
4. In her life time Parwatevva relinquished her share in R.S. No. 91 in favour of the present appellant (Marabasappa). Thereafter, subsequent to an oral partition, she gave one part of the other property bearing R.S. No. 143/1 and R.S. No. 143/2 to the respondent (Ningappa) and the heirs of Bhimappa respectively. In June 1984, Parwatevva executed a will of ‘stridhana’ land to her daughter, Sangawwa. Parwatevva died on 08.07.1984. The present dispute is between her children and their heirs.
5. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 40/1990 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Gadag [hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”], inter alia alleging that the entire property mentioned above is the joint family property and the same was not the personal property of Parwatevva, and hence, a prayer for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share was made in respect of Schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties. Schedule ‘A’ properties consist of agricultural lands. Schedule ‘B’ properties consist of houses and open places and Schedule ‘C’ properties consist of movables of all the properties held by the defendants-appellants except the plaintiffs’ properties. The Trial Court negatived this contention of the respondents-plaintiffs on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and found, inter alia, that the said properties were self acquired properties of Parwatevva, accordingly, has partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents.
6. Being aggrieved, the parties to the suit preferred Regular First Appeals. The High Court, by the impugned Judgment and Order, set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court and took the view that apart from the stridhana land, the rest of the property was a part of the joint family property purchased from the income and funds of the joint family property and, therefore, the decree, as sought by the plaintiffs, requires to be granted. Against this finding and the conclusion reached by the High Court, the appellants-defendants are before us.
7. Shri Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel, a
