Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.
APPASAHEB PEERAPPA CHAMDGADE - Appellant;
Versus
DEVENDRA PEERAPPA CHAMDGADE
AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2000
Decided on October 19, 2006
Advocates appeared
P. Krishnamurthy, Senior Advocate (Rajesh Mahale, R.C. Kohli and C.B. Gururaj, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
V.A. Mohta, Senior Advocate (Neelkantha Nayeen; G.V.Chandrashekar and P.P. Singh,
Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Joint Hindu Family Property - Partition - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Schedule B(I), Schedule B(II), Schedule B(III), Schedule B(IV), Schedule B(V), Schedule B(VI), Schedule B(VII), Schedule B(VIII), Schedule B(IX) - The court discussed the properties mentioned in the schedules and the dispute between the parties regarding whether the properties were joint Hindu family property or self-acquired properties of the defendants and their children. The court held that the burden of proof initially lies on the plaintiff to establish the property as joint family property, and then shifts to the defendants to prove self-acquisition. The court referred to various legal principles and precedents to support its decision, ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiff and Defendant 9, granting them a 3/16th share in the suit properties.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought partition of properties claiming them to be joint family properties, while the defendants claimed the properties were self-acquired. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court reversed the decision, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties in question were joint family acquisitions and ruled in favor of the plaintiff and Defendant 9, granting them a 3/16th share in the suit properties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the properties were joint Hindu family properties or self-acquired properties of the defendants and their children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof initially lies on the plaintiff to establish the property as joint family property, and then shifts to the defendants to prove self-acquisition. The court referred to various legal principles and precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and affirmed the order of the trial court, ruling in favor of the plaintiff and Defendant 9.
Judgment
A.K. MATHUR, J. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi in as No. 160 of 1988 whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit relating to family property i.e. Schedule B, Part II, Item 2, TMC No. [old No. 1846 - A, new No. 2178 (house)], Part III, Item 1 MH No. 202/235, Hindwadi Belgaum, Item 2 MH No. 687/1 (Ravivarpeth), Item 4 CTS No. 1551 (open space) (Hindwadi). The plaintiff f also filed a cross - objection with reference to three businesses mentioned in Part IV (Schedule B) namely Mahaveer Trading Company, Indu Oil Mill Company and Srikant Oil Company. The decree in respect of these companies has been granted and these companies have been held to be partnership concern. So far as Item 1 in Part VI (Schedule B), namely, goods truck bearing No. MEI 7567 is concerned, separate regular first appeal being 9 RFA No. 428 of 1993 was filed and the same has been disposed of with which we are not concerned.
2. The real dispute between the parties is whether the properties for which a decree was passed by the trial court was joint Hindu family property or those were self - acquired properties of the defendants and their children.
3. The case of the plaintiff, Appasaheb was that all the properties h mentioned above were the joint family properties and, therefore, he sought partition of the said properties. The following properties formed part of Schedule B which reads as under:
"Schedule B
(I) Agricultural lands situateQ within the village limits of Sadalaga, Taluka Chikodi
Sl. Sy. No.AreaAssessmentValue
No. A Gs
1.893/310.1040.081,00,000.00
2.72/21.007.0010,000.00
3.52/20.306.007500.00
4.73/38.3045.23
Out of this11.3020,000.00
2.07
(II) The joint Hindu family house properties situated at Sadalaga, Taluka Chikodi
Sl. TMC No.Value
No.
1.Old 1736 (house) New 2036 Rs25,000.00
2.Old 1846 - A New 2178 (house) Rs30,000.00
3.3130/2 (open house) Rs10,000.00
4.1986 = 1644 (house) Rs 8000.00
5.1923 = 1660 (house) Rs 9000.00
6.1367 = 1193 (house) Rs10,000.00
7. 1935 = 1669 (house)Rs 5000.00
(III) Properties situated at Belgaum
1.MH No. 203/235, Hindwadi, Belgaum Rs 2,00,000.00
2.MH No. 687/1, Ravivarpeth Rs 1,00,000.00
3.MH No. 764/8A (Angol Mal) Rs 1,50,000.00
4.CTS No. 1551 (open space) Hindwadi, Belgaum Rs 30,000.00
(IV) The suit undivided Hindu family business at Belgaum
1.Mahaveer Trading Company, firm in
Shop No. 843 in Ravivarpeth, including
capital goods and turnover Rs1000.00
2.Indu Oil Company in Shop No. 677 firm Rs1000.00
3.Trade in oil in the name of Srikant,
Ravivarpeth, Belgaum Rs1000.00
(V) The suit undivided Hindu family business at Sadalaga, Taluk Chikodi, District Belgaum
1.Dhana Laxmi Stores Rs1000.00
2.Kirana shop in the name and style of
C.S. HukeriRs1000.00
(VI) The suit undivided Hindu family movables
1.Goods truck bearing Reg. No. MEI 7567 Rs1,00,000.00
2.A car bearing Reg. No. MHH 30 Rs 60,000.00
3.Scooter bearing Reg. No. CTL 3597 Rs 12,000.00
4.Hero Honda Reg. No. CTS 7069 Rs 15,000.00
5.Ambassador car bearing No. MZH 9453 Rs 50,000.00
6. Ambassador car bearing No. 4334 Rs 50,000.00
(VII) Shares and bank accounts
1.Two shares each worth Rs 1000 in
Panchaganga Sugar Factory, Ichalkaranji Rs 2000.00
2.One share in c.K.S.S. Factory worth
Rs 1000 Rs 1000.00
3.Amount in Account No .... in State Bank
of India, Branch Ravivarpeth, Belgaum Rs 1000.00
4.Amount in Account No .... in Syndicate
Bank, Branch Maruti Galli, Belgaum Rs 1000.00
5.Amount in Account No .... Ratnakar
Bank, Branch Belgaum Rs 1000.00
(VIII) The family movables including the
cooking apparatuses and utensils, etc.
10 Belgaum and at Sadalaga family house Rs 10,000.00
(IX) (i) Four she - buffaloes Rs 6000.00
(ii) Two bullocks Rs 2000.00
(iii) Bullock - cart and agricultural
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
