Shares of Parties through Partition of Joint Hindu Family Property become their Self-Acquired Properties: Supreme Court

Introduction:

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court, in Angadi Chandranna vs Shankar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 2025), arising out of SLP(C), setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s Judgment, held that the mere existence of sons and daughters in a Joint Hindu family does not make the father’s separate or self-acquired property as the joint family property.

Brief Fact:

• The dispute centres around a piece of land bearing Survey No. 93 of area admeasuring 7 acres 20 guntas, situated at Mahadevapura Village, Parashurampura Hobli, Challakere Taluk (suit Property).

• According to the chain of title, the Partition Deed dated 9^th May 1986 was executed by and between C. Jayaramappa (Defendant No. 1) and his two brothers, namely, i) C. Thippeswamy and ii) Eshwarappa, whereby ancestral properties, including the suit Property partitioned and divided among the brothers.

• Subsequently, C. Thippeswamy sold his share of Property (i.e., suit Property) in favour of C. Jayaramappa by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 16^th October 1989. Later, C. Jayaramappa sold the suit Property in favour of Angadi Chandranna (Appellant) through a registered Sale Deed dated 11^th March 1993.

• The respondents, who are sons and daughters of C. Jayaramappa instituted a suit bearing O.S. No. 169 of 1994 before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of the suit Property. The Trial Court passed judgment and decree dated 21^st December 2001 in favour of the Respondents, holding that the Respondents are entitled to partition and separate possession by metes and bounds through revenue authorities.

• Challenging the same, Appellant filed a Regular Appeal bearing no. 291 of 2002 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree on 21^st February 2006 in favour of the Appellant, setting aside the Trial Court decree and Judgement.

• Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Respondents filed Regular Second Appeal no. 1417 of 2006 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Consequently, by judgment and order dated 12^th August 2021, Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court to consider the suit Property as self-acquired property of C. Jayaramappa.

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred in its finding and concluded that C. Jayaramappa received suit Property under Will dated 18^th December 1978 and subsequently blended in Joint family properties. However, the property received by C. Jayaramappa is unrelated to the suit Property and C. Jayaramappa paid consideration amount through his own funds and from a loan obtained from Narasimhamurthy while purchasing the suit Property.

• The appellant purchased the suit Property from C. Jayaramappa, who earlier purchased it using his own funds. At the time of purchase, the suit Property was not a part of the joint family property.

• The doctrine of blending of self-acquired property into the joint family pool applies only when self-acquired property is voluntarily thrown into the common stock with the intention to abandon the separate claim over the suit Property.

• The question of law framed by the High Court is a pure question of fact. The High Court can intervene in a question involving misapplication of legal principles or legal error in the appreciation of evidence, but it cannot convert a question of fact into a question of law while deciding jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).

• Respondents instituted the suit for partition and separate possession without seeking a relief for the cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 16^th October 1989.

Respondents Arguments:

• The ancestral property character does not change upon the partition, for his Male issues, who acquire an interest in it by birth, whether they exist at the time of partition or are born subsequently.

• C. Jayaramappa sold the suit Property without the legal necessity and without consent of Respondents, making the sale deed void.

• C. Jayaramappa purchased the suit Property by way of Sale Deed dated 16^th October 1989 for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- . He used the nucleus fund to purchase the suit Property, through i) Income from partitioned land of C. Jayaramappa, ii) Rs. 10,000/- cash received in partition, iii) Cash from Mallamma (grandmother) by selling property and iv) Savings from doing labour work, hence it’s an ancestral property, not a self-acquired Property.

Judgement:

• The High Court cannot act like a Trial or First Appellate Court unless the situation strictly falls under Section 103 of CPC. The authority to reconsider the evidence is available only to the First Appellate Court under Section 96 of CPC and not to the High Court in exercise of its authority under Section 100 of CPC, unless the case falls under the exceptional circumstances provided under Section 103 of CPC that is when the First Appellate Court has failed to look into the law or evidence or considered inadmissible evidence or without evidence.

• Loan was given in the year 1989 and repaid in the year 1993 by C. Jayaramappa through a sale of 4 Acres of his other land and with the balance amount, he performed the marriage of his daughter with the funds received as sale consideration which is the role of Kartha and has to be treated as act of legal necessity and duty.

• After partition, each party receives a separate and distinct share, and this share becomes their self-acquired property, and they have absolute rights over it, and they can sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish.

• Pursuant to the above, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside, and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is restored, allowing the appeal.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the claim of the Respondents that the suit Property is ancestral property, on the ground that no substantive evidence was adduced to consider the suit Property as the ancestral property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that once the partition deed is executed, it becomes self-acquired Property of the respective parties, holding rights to sell the property to a third party.

For more details, write to us at: contact@indialaw.in