A shared Hindu family property is divided, and the parts given to each co-parent become their own self-acquired property. The Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar & Ors. Held that the apex court set aside the judgment by the Karnataka High Court declaring void a sale executed by a co-parcener after such partition.
The Supreme Court ruled that joint family property ceases to be joint family property after it has been divided legally and each party's shares become their own self-acquired property.
Background of the Case
- The dispute aroused when Defendant No.1 (Chandranna) sold off that portion of ancestral property purchased from his brother, after a formal partition in the family. The plaintiffs, his children, contested the transaction, claiming that the property is still ancestral and part of joint family estate, and hence cannot be sold without their consent.
- The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs but the First Appellate Court overruled the decision and decreed the sale. The appellants knocked on the Supreme Court's doors when the High Court later reversed the appellate court's ruling.
Legal Issue in the Case
The central issue was:
- Whether the suit property was self-acquired or inherited (joint family)?
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan have elucidated some significant principles of Hindu law relating to joint family property and self-acquired property.
There Is No Automatic Presumption of Joint Family Property
- The Court said that joint property cannot be presumed merely because a joint Hindu Family exists - the party claiming it must prove that it was purchased out of the joint family nucleus.
- A piece of property is not always joint-family property solely because Hindu families generally consider themselves joint. Evidence is required to support the statement.
The Role of Joint Family Nucleus
- Where it can be shown that there existed a joint family nucleus for the sufficient acquiring of the property, the burden would fall on the other party claiming it to be self-acquired to show that the said property was acquired from personal funds and not from the joint family income.
- Here the Respondent No. 1 had successfully established that it was through a loan that the disputed property was bought and not from any ancestral funds or joint family resources.
Partition Converts Property to Self-Acquired
- After a valid partition of property, the assets received by each co-parcener are no longer joint family property.
- Each partner obtains a unique share following the division, which turns into self-acquired property. A party can do anything with such property, including selling, transferring, or bequeathing.
Doctrine of Blending
- These are properties considered by the owner to be his self-acquired properties but which he voluntarily throws into the common stock. The court clarified that this requires adjudicating the issue of clear intention demonstrating an abandonment of his separate rights.
- It must be evident that individual rights are being abandoned. It is not established by generosity, joint use, or failure to maintain separate accounts.
- There was no indication on record that Defendant No.1 has at any time thrown his self-acquired properties into the common family assets.
Final Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the high court wrongly applied the principles of blending theory and did not pay attention to the factual and legal situation. The following was noted in the ruling written by Justice Mahadevan:
- It turns into his self-acquired property when his brother sold the suit property that the Defendant No. 1 had bought to him under a sale deed dated 16.10.1989.
- The Court also mentioned that the plaintiffs have not proved that the property was taken using joint family funds. On the other hand, Defendant No.1 produced more than sufficient evidence that he took a loan to purchase the property.
- The other thing is that the Court referred to the earlier sale of property being for the benefit of the family and, thus no malice or misuse of ownership rights could be construed.
This allows the appeal, and the Supreme Court came to hold, thus, that the suit property was acquired by Defendant No.1 through private means and that he would have every legal right to alienate the property. The said sale deed for Defendant No.2 became valid and lawful in its very conception.
Thus, has been made a ruling on an important precedent to reaffirm that post-partition shares in joint Hindu family property gain the status of self-acquired property and give the holder complete rights of ownership.
Sharks of Law offers a comprehensive legal solutions facility, providing an extensive collection of information on diverse areas of law in the legal field by the best professionals in this area. With this law firm, you can search and find a lawyer who can meet your legal requirements for online consultation. The attorneys at Sharks of Law have the necessary expertise across all the fields involved should you have any inquiries that require legal counsel.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
