Each co-parent receives a portion of a shared Hindu family property, which they then turn into their own independently obtained property. In Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar & Ors., the Supreme Court ruled that the Karnataka High Court’s ruling that a sale carried out by a co-parcener following such a division was null and invalid was overturned.
The Supreme Court decided that once property is officially divided and each party’s shares become their own self-acquired property, it no longer qualifies as joint family property.
The Case’s Background
• Following a formal family division, the conflict arose when Defendant No. 1 (Chandranna) sold off the piece of ancestral property he had acquired from his brother. His children, the plaintiffs, challenged the deal, arguing that the land could not be sold without their approval because it is still ancestral and a part of the joint family inheritance.
• The First Appellate Court overturned the lower court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the sale. When the High Court later overturned the appeal court’s decision, the appellants knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court.
The Case’s Legal Issue
• Is the suit property inherited (joint family) or self-acquired? That was the main question.
Important Findings of the Supreme Court
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan’s bench has clarified certain important Hindu legal concepts regarding self-acquired property and joint family property.
The Presumption of Joint Family Property Is Not Automatic
• The Court ruled that the existence of a joint Hindu family does not automatically imply joint property; rather, the party asserting joint property must demonstrate that it was acquired from the joint family core.
• Despite the fact that Hindu families typically view themselves as joint, a piece of property is not automatically joint-family property. The assertion needs to be backed up by evidence.
The Joint Family Nucleus’s Function
• The onus would be on the opposing party asserting that the property was self-acquired to demonstrate that it was obtained from personal finances rather than the joint family income in cases where it could be demonstrated that there was a joint family nucleus for the adequate acquisition of the property.
• In this case, Respondent No. 1 was successful in proving that the contested property was purchased via a loan rather than using any joint family or ancestral finances.
Property Is Converted to Self-Acquired by Partition
• The assets received by each co-parcener are no longer joint family property following a lawful property division.
• After the division, each partner receives a distinct portion, which becomes self-acquired property. A party may sell, transfer, or bequeath such property, among other things.
The Blending Doctrine
• These are properties that the owner voluntarily donates to the common stock even though he still views them as his own. The court explained that this necessitates deciding whether there was a clear desire to show that he had given up his individual rights.
• The abandonment of individual rights must be obvious. It is not proven by failure to keep separate accounts, generosity, or common use.
• There was no documentation indicating that Defendant No. 1 had ever placed his privately owned properties under the common family assets.
Ultimate Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court decided that the high court ignored the legal and factual circumstances and incorrectly applied the blending theory’s principles. The following was mentioned in Justice Mahadevan’s ruling:
• When his brother sold the suit property that Defendant No. 1 had purchased for him under a sale deed dated 16.10.1989, it became his self-acquired property.
• The plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the property was seized with joint family funds, the court added. However, Defendant No. 1 provided more than enough proof that he borrowed money to buy the home.
• The Court also mentioned that the previous property sale was for the family’s advantage, therefore there was no indication of malice or abuse of ownership rights.
This permits the appeal, and the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant No. 1 had the legal authority to alienate the suit property since it was obtained by him privately. In its very genesis, the aforementioned sale deed for Defendant No. 2 became legitimate and legal.
In order to confirm that post-partition shares in joint Hindu family property assume the status of self-acquired property and grant the bearer full ownership rights, a significant precedent has been established.
With a vast collection of material on a variety of legal topics compiled by the top experts in the field, Sharks of Law provides a comprehensive legal solutions facility. You can look for a lawyer who can satisfy your legal needs for an online consultation with this law business. If you have any questions that call for legal advice, the lawyers at Sharks of Law have the requisite experience in every area.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
https://www.sharksoflaw.com/blog-detail/partition-of-joint-hindu-property-makes-shares-self-acquired-supreme-court