The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that after the partition of a joint Hindu family property, the individual shares of the co-parceners transform into their self-acquired properties.
"After the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family properties and the shares of the respective parties become their self-acquired properties," the Court observed.
This decision came while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, which had invalidated a property sale made by a co-parcener post-partition.
Case Background
The case revolved around whether a property purchased by Defendant No.1, Chandranna, was self-acquired or remained ancestral, thereby impacting the rights of his children (the plaintiffs) for partition. Following the partition deed dated 09.05.1986, Defendant No.1 purchased his brother’s share using his own income and a loan. Later, he sold it to the appellants.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Ignored Completely; Court Must Examine What Is Reliable
The plaintiffs, however, contested the transaction, arguing that Defendant No.1 used joint family funds to buy the property, making it ancestral. The trial court ruled in their favor, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, recognizing the appellants’ ownership. However, the High Court set aside the appellate ruling, leading the matter to the Supreme Court.
Core Legal Principles Explained
The Supreme Court outlined the applicable legal principles:
"It is a settled principle that there is no presumption that a property is joint family property merely because there is a joint family. Whoever asserts it must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus from which the property was acquired."
If such a nucleus is established, the burden shifts to prove self-acquisition. However, the existence of a nucleus must be a matter of fact, not mere probability.
The Court also reiterated:
"For a property to be considered ancestral, it must be inherited from paternal ancestors up to three generations."
Additionally, regarding the blending of self-acquired property into joint family property, the Court stressed:
"A clear intention to abandon separate ownership must be proved. Mere generosity or kindness in allowing family members to use the property will not amount to blending."
Supreme Court’s Decision
After reviewing the facts, the Supreme Court emphasized that after partition, each share becomes a distinct self-acquired property. Defendant No.1 lawfully purchased the suit property with personal funds and a loan and held full rights to sell it.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Cancel Senthil Balaji's Bail After His Resignation as Tamil Nadu Minister
“After the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family properties and the shares of the respective parties become their self-acquired properties.”
The Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the suit property was ancestral. Evidence showed that the purchase was made using a loan, not from family income. The Court also disagreed with the High Court’s application of the doctrine of blending.
Highlighting the role of the father (Karta) in utilizing family resources for necessary expenses, such as marriage, the Court held:
“Expenses incurred for marriage are to be treated as acts of necessity and duty.”
Thus, the sale was considered lawful and valid.
Case Title: ANGADI CHANDRANNA VERSUS SHANKAR & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Ms. Pariksha, Adv. Mr. Shreehare J, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv.
