PROPERTY ACQUIRED AFTER PARTITION DEED IS SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY, NOT HINDU JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY, SC

ANGADI CHANDRANNA v. SHANKAR & ORS.

Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 2025

Supreme Court of India

(R. Mahadevan, J., J.B. Pardiwala, J.)

HINDU LAW — JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY — PARTITION — SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY: Property received by a co-parcener under a partition deed becomes his self-acquired property. Once a partition takes place, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property with absolute rights over it, including the right to sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish.

COPARCENARY PROPERTY — BURDEN OF PROOF: The burden of proving that a property is joint family property lies on the person who asserts it. There is no presumption of a property being joint family property merely due to the existence of a joint Hindu family. If the person asserting proves that there was a nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, then there would be presumption of the property being joint, and the onus would shift to the person claiming it to be self-acquired property.

HINDU LAW — ANCESTRAL PROPERTY — DEFINITION: For a property to be considered ancestral, it must be inherited from paternal ancestors up to three generations. The essential feature of ancestral property is that sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire an interest and rights attached to such property at the moment of their birth.

DOCTRINE OF BLENDING — APPLICATION: The doctrine of blending of self-acquired property with joint family property applies only when such self-acquired property is voluntarily thrown into the common stock with intention to abandon separate claim over it. To establish such abandonment, a clear intention to waive separate rights must be proven. Mere acts of generosity or kindness will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of legal obligation.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — SECTION 100 — SECOND APPEAL: The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to cases where a substantial question of law exists. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence just because another view is possible when the view taken by the First Appellate Court is plausible and does not suffer from vice in law. The High Court can interfere with findings of fact only if the First Appellate Court has failed to look into the law or evidence, or considered inadmissible evidence, or acted without evidence.

HELD:

1. After partition of joint family property, the individual shares allotted to each co-parcener become their self-acquired property.
2. When the First Appellate Court has considered the entire evidence and rendered a finding, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC merely because another view is possible.
3. The property in dispute was acquired by the defendant out of loan obtained and not from income derived from joint family funds, making it self-acquired property which he had the right to sell.
4. The presence of sons and daughters in a joint Hindu family does not automatically make the father’s separate or self-acquired property joint family property.
5. Appeal allowed; judgment of First Appellate Court restored.

Edited & Reviewed by Neeraj Gogia, Advocate

Connect us for legal enquiry:- 9891800100

advocateneerajgogia@gmail.com

HinduLaw #JointFamilyProperty #Partition #SelfAcquiredProperty #SupremeCourtOfIndia #CoparcenaryProperty #DoctrineOfBlending #BurdenOfProof #SecondAppeal #CPC