Self-Acquired Properties Thrown into Joint Family Hotchpot Deemed Joint Family Property: Karnataka HC - 2024-02-21

Self Acquired Properties Of Hindu Joint Family Member If Thrown In "Common Hotchpot" To Be Treated As Joint Family Property: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that if a member of a joint Hindu family voluntarily throws his/her self-acquired property into common hotchpot with the intention of abandoning his/her separate claim over it and render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property.

The court had ordered that Nirmala is entitled to get 1/6th share in the suit properties.

As per Nirmala, her grandmother Eramma had bought suit properties but in family partition these properties were partitioned between her children and the suit properties had fallen to the share of Narayana Reddy (one of the appellants).

The appeal was opposed claiming subject properties having been put into a common hotchpot, eventually resulting into joint family property, the assertion of the Appellants that they do not have trappings of ancestral property, pales into insignificance.

The court considered the evidence of a witness who admitted that suit properties were ancestral properties. The Karnataka High Court has held that if a member of a joint Hindu family voluntarily throws his/her self-acquired property into common hotchpot with the intention of abandoning his/her separate claim over it and render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja while dismissing an appeal filed by T Narayana Reddy and another said,

“Partitioning of the self acquired property amongst all the members of the family by the matriarch raises a very strong presumption as to the subject properties having been put into a common hotchpot. That being the position, there is an eminent case for the invocation of the doctrine of common hotchpot.”

Further it said, “If pleadings of parties coupled with the evidentiary material on record give scope for the invocation of this doctrine, this Court being the First Appellate Court cannot refrain from pressing into service the said doctrine to save the judgement & decree, which is otherwise vulnerable for challenge.”

The appellant had challenged the order of the trial court allowing the suit filed by his daughter Nirmala seeking partition of ancestral properties. The court had ordered that Nirmala is entitled to get 1/6th share in the suit properties.

As per Nirmala, her grandmother Eramma had bought suit properties but in family partition these properties were partitioned between her children and the suit properties had fallen to the share of Narayana Reddy (one of the appellants).

The appellants argued that properties having been bought by Eramma, she was the absolute owner thereof and she was in the exclusive possession. Because of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she had full ownership over these properties. These properties do not bear the character of ancestral acquisition, shares allotted to 1st Appellant (Reddy) being his separate property, the suit for partition would not lie.

The appeal was opposed claiming subject properties having been put into a common hotchpot, eventually resulting into joint family property, the assertion of the Appellants that they do not have trappings of ancestral property, pales into insignificance.

The court considered the evidence of a witness who admitted that suit properties were ancestral properties. Rejecting the contention of the appellants that above is a stray admission and therefore, not entitled to weigh much, the court said,

“An admission is treated as a substantive piece of evidence in any civilised jurisdiction. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that the admitted facts need not be proved. Of course, section 31 qualifies that admissions are not a conclusive proof of the matter admitted, is also true. However, this qualification cannot be invoked by the Appellants who did not conduct re-examination of DW.1 for explaining away the effect of admission. Nothing is stated even at the Bar as to why such a right of re-examination was not availed.”

Thus it held in view of these specific recitals that are not disputed nor explained away as being wrong, there is absolutely no scope for employing the adjective 'stray' to the admission.

Further noting that all the parties to the suit have structured their stand on the basis of Partition Deed and even the sale deeds sought to be placed on record do not deviate from this substratum, it observed, “Law relating to blending of separate property with those of joint family is well settled. Such an intention can be inferred by the words and if there are no words, then from his conduct.”

Court also referred to the Partition Deed of 1970 wherein first part has the narration of Eramma who states these properties to be her own acquisition however the latter part has a recital as to she and her children being in the joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, it observed,

“Nobody has set a case contrary to the content, intent & tenor of the Partition Deed or other conveyances by way of registered Gifts, etc. as already mentioned above.”

Relying on the doctrine of estoppel enacted u/s 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it said, “All the parties to the partition of 1970 having treated the subject property as being joint family property, they cannot contend to the contra, more particularly when others have acted on that premise and altered their position to the detriment. Further, permitting the Appellants to contend to the contrary amounts to permitting them blowing hot and cold at one breath, which the law shuns.”

However, on account of the death of Appellant No 1 (T Narayana Reddy) during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant no 2 and respondent filed a joint memo submitting that they will seek equitable appointment of their share by taking into account their receipts & gifts and developments before the final decree proceedings after due enquiry.

Accordingly the court dismissed the appeal and directed that all such aspects mentioned in the joint memo need to be examined by the FDP Court, if & when initiated.

Appearance: Advocate Sadanand Shastri for A2.

Advocate B Ramesh FOR R1.

Advocate A G Ravikumar FOR R2.

Advocate Venkateshwara Balu FOR R3.

Advocate Mahadevaswamy for R4.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

Case Title: T Narayana Reddy & ANR AND Nirmala & others

Case No: Regular First Appeal No 491 OF 2016