Supreme Court: Mere Existence Of Sons & Daughters In Joint Hindu Family Doesn’t Make Father’s Separate Or Self-Acquired Property As Joint Family Property

The Supreme Court held that mere existence of sons and daughters in a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) does not make the father's separate or self-acquired property as joint family property.

The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed by a property purchaser, against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the Decree passed by the Civil Judge.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “The mere existence of sons and daughters in a joint Hindu family does not make the father's separate or self acquired property as joint family property. It was also the claim of the defendants that Defendant No.1 performed the marriage of his daughter with the funds received as sale consideration, which according to us, is the role of a Kartha, and therefore, has to be treated as act of necessity and duty. This fact has not been objected to by the plaintiffs.”

The Bench reiterated that 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.

Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan represented the Appellant while AOR Nishanth Patil represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant (Defendant No. 2) was a purchaser of a property and the Respondents (Plaintiffs) were the sons and daughters of the Defendant No. 1. The said Defendant and his two brothers after the death of their father and uncle, divided the joint family properties under a registered Partition Deed. Subsequently, he purchased the Suit property from his elder brother via registered Sale Deed and thereafter, he sold the same to the Defendant No. 2 (Appellant). The Plaintiffs had instituted a Suit before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of the suit property.

After due trial, the Trial Court decreed the Suit as prayed for, by holding that the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds through revenue authorities. Challenging the same, the Appellant moved Regular Appeal. The First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiffs filed Regular Second Appeal which was allowed and the Judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside by the High Court. Therefore, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… 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.”

The Court said that 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.

“It is also to be mentioned here that when the income derived from the joint family property or when a joint family property is sold and the sale consideration is utilised for maintenance and education within the joint family, the same are to be treated as out of necessity as it is the duty of every Kartha to do so. Hence, it is sufficient to satisfy the legal necessity if the Kartha had sold the property and used the funds for upbringing the children”, it further emphasised.

The Court added that, under the customary practices and tradition in this country, it is the father who performs the marriage of his children and therefore, the expenses incurred for that purposes are also to be treated as expenses out of necessity.

“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”, it observed.

Doctrine of Blending

The Court reiterated 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.

“… the High Court erroneously applied the doctrine of blending under the Hindu joint family law by relying upon judgments that are not applicable to the case on hand, re-appreciated evidence without framing any substantial question of law and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. This, according to us, is not sustainable for the aforesaid reasons”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the High Court’s Judgment.

Cause Title- Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 532)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan, AOR K. Paari Vendhan, Advocates Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Aditi Gupta, Pariksha, S. Sabari Bala Pandian, and Shreehare J.

Respondents: AOR Nishanth Patil, Advocates Ayush P Shah, Arijit Dey, and Mehul Kumar Garg.

Click here to read/download the Judgment