When Joint Hindu Family Property Is Partitioned, Shares Of Parties Become Their Self-Acquired Properties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that following the partition of a joint family property, the individual shares allotted to each co-parcener become their self-acquired property.

"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 stated.

Holding thus, the Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had invalidated the sale made by a co-parcener of his share in the ancestral property after the partition of the ancestral property.

“It cannot be disputed that the properties divided among Defendant No.1 and his brothers through partition deed dated 09.05.1986, are joint family properties. However, as per Hindu law, after partition, each party gets 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. Accordingly, the properties bequeathed through partition, become the self-acquired properties of the respective sharers.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the case where the dispute revolved around the dispute over whether a property purchased by Defendant No. 1 (Chandranna) was self-acquired or joint family property, thereby affecting the rights of his children (plaintiffs) to claim partition.

Briefly put, following the partition of ancestral property between Defendant No.1 and his brothers, Defendant No.1 purchased his brother's share using his own income. He subsequently sold the property to the Appellants, asserting that the share acquired by his brother had become his self-acquired property, and that he held absolute authority to alienate it, as no co-parcener existed.

However, the Respondent's/plaintiff disputed the transaction noting that the Defendant No.1 had purchased the property from the family nucleus, therefore the property cannot be categorized asself-acquired property, but an ancestral property.

The trial court decided in the Respondents' favour, however, the First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, declaring Appellants as owners of the property.

Upon the High Court's reversal of the First Appellate Court's decision, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Issue

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the suit property was ancestral (joint family) or self-acquired.

Principles explained

The Supreme Court explained the applicable principles as follows :

"It is a settled principle of law that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was 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 on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available. That apart, while considering the term 'nucleus' it should always be borne in mind that such nucleus has to be established as a matter of fact and the existence of such nucleus cannot normally be presumed or assumed on probabilities."

The Court further stated that "for a property to be considered as an ancestral property, it has to be inherited from any of the paternal ancestors up to three generations." Reference was made to Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai(2019).

Regarding the doctrine of blending of self-acquired property with joint family, the Court said that a clear intention of the owner to abandon the property must be established.

"It is settled law that property separate or self- acquired of a member of joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established."

"From the mere fact that other members of the family were allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate property was utilized out of generosity to support persons whom the holder was either bound or not bound to support, or from the failure to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness, will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation."

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erroneously applied the doctrine of blending. It was found that the Defendant had separately maintained his self-acquired property distinct from his property received through Will.

Decision

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed that after partition, the property allotted to each brother became their self-acquired property, and Defendant No. 1 had an absolute right to purchase it from his brother from his income, and thereafter to sell the same.

“As reiterated above, 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. Hence, the suit property acquired by Defendant No.1 became his self-acquired property, on being sold by his brother Thippeswamy to him, vide sale deed dated 16.10.1989.”, the court said.

Further, the Respondents/Plaintiff failed to rebut the claim that the property purchased by the Defendant No. 1 wasn't his self-acquired property, as evidence was presented by the defendant no.1 proving that the property so purchased by him was through the loan taken by him and not from the income derived from the family nucleus funds.

“Thus, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the above decisions, in our considered opinion, Defendant No.1 acquired the suit property out of the loan obtained from DW3 and not from the income derived from the nucleus funds or joint family funds, and hence, the suit property should be considered as his self-acquired property. As such, Defendant No.1 has the right to sell the suit property and accordingly, the sale deed executed by him in favour of Defendant No.2 is perfectly valid. That apart, the evidence on record also displays that the object of the sale of the suit property was for the benefit of the family and therefore, we also disagree with the findings of the High Court on this aspect.”, the court noted.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and held that the suit property was validly acquired by Defendant No.1 and was lawfully sold to the Appellants.

Case Title: ANGADI CHANDRANNA VERSUS SHANKAR & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.