Shares of Parties Become Self-Acquired Properties After Partition of Joint Hindu Family Property : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. reaffirmed that after the partition of joint family property, the shares allotted to each co-parcener become their self-acquired property. The Court clarified that once the joint family property is divided, it ceases to be joint property, and each co-parcener's share becomes their self-acquired property, over which they have absolute rights, including the right to sell, transfer, or bequeath.
The case arose when Defendant No. 1 (Chandranna) purchased his brother's share in an ancestral property using his own funds after the partition in 1986. The Appellants purchased the property from him, claiming it as his self-acquired property. However, the Plaintiffs disputed this, arguing that the property, being from a family nucleus, was ancestral and not self-acquired.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, confirming the Appellants as owners. The Karnataka High Court later overturned the First Appellate Court's ruling, leading the Appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court clarified that there is no presumption of joint family property unless the party claiming it can prove its joint status. If a property is purchased with joint family funds, the onus shifts to the claimant to prove it was bought with their own separate funds. The Court also emphasized that for property to be considered ancestral, it must be inherited up to three generations from paternal ancestors.
Regarding the blending doctrine, the Court stated that for self-acquired property to be considered joint family property, there must be clear intent to abandon separate rights. Simple acts like allowing family members to use the property or contributing income to support the family do not constitute such intent.
In this case, the Court held that the High Court had incorrectly applied the blending doctrine. It found that Defendant No. 1 had maintained his self-acquired property separately from the joint family property. The property purchased by Defendant No. 1 was acquired using a loan and not from joint family funds, making it his self-acquired property. Therefore, Defendant No. 1 had the absolute right to sell the property, and the sale to the Appellants was valid.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, ruling that the suit property was self-acquired and lawfully sold.