Angadi Chandranna vs Shankar on 22 April, 2025 | Hindu Joint Family Purchased ancestral property is considered self-acquired property.

हिन्दी में पढ़ें

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, clarified the status of property acquired after partition under Hindu law. The Court held that property purchased by a coparcener using personal funds or debt after a valid partition would be treated as self-acquired property and cannot be claimed as ancestral property by legal heirs merely on the basis of coparcenary status.

This judgement reinforces established legal principles regarding joint family property, self-acquisition, and limits of appellate intervention under Section 100 CPC.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose out of a civil suit for partition and separate possession initiated in 1994 by the children of respondent No. 1 (C. Jayaramappa). The plaintiffs claimed their right on the basis of ancestral property over a land measuring 7 acres 20 guntas situated at Mahadevapura Village, Challakere Taluk.

Facts of the Case:

• In 1986, a partition took place between the three brothers – Defendant No. 1 and his siblings by a registered deed. Under this partition, the disputed property was originally allotted to C. Thippeswamy (brother of Defendant No. 1).
• On 16th October, 1989, Defendant No. 1 purchased the disputed property from Thippeswamy by a registered sale deed.
• On 11th March, 1993, Defendant No. 1 sold the land to Defendant No. 2 (Angadi Chandranna).
• The plaintiff (children of Defendant No. 1) challenged the sale and sought partition and separate possession, claiming that the land was ancestral and formed part of the joint family property.

Procedural background

Questions before the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the suit property was ancestral or self-acquired? (Main Question)
2. Whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by re-appreciating the facts?
3. Whether there was evidence of nuclear family justifying the presumption of joint family acquisition ?
4. Whether the doctrine of blending of self-acquired property with joint family property was applicable?

Analysis and Conclusion of the Supreme Court

Abuse of second appellate jurisdiction by the High Court

The Court held that the High Court erroneously interfered with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the CPC without framing a substantial question of law.

“Unless the findings are perverse or contrary to law, reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in a second appeal.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that a second appeal is confined only to substantial legal issues and not to findings of fact or alternative interpretations.

The suit property is self-acquired

The Court concluded that:

Defendant No.1 purchased the suit land from his brother after partition. He financed the purchase through personal loan (proven by several witnesses including PW3) and not from the joint family income.

The sale deed (Exh. D1) and the statements of PW1 to PW4 supported that the property was purchased using loan money, and a separate land was subsequently sold to repay the loan.

The Court, therefore, found that there was no joint family nucleus or any evidence to show that the suit property was purchased using ancestral money.

Burden of proof is on the claimant of ancestral status

Referring to decisions such as R. Devanai Ammal v. Meenakshi Ammal, the Court emphasised:

Mere existence of a joint Hindu family does not presume joint family property.

The plaintiffs failed to prove that the purchase money was the nucleus of ancestral income. The claim that the grandmother of respondent No. 1 contributed Rs. 10,000 or that the income came from ancestral land was not supported by documentary evidence or credible testimony.

Doctrine of Blending not applicable

 The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s application of the doctrine of blending, which applies when a coparcener voluntarily treats self-acquired property as joint family property.

In the present case:

No intention to renounce separate ownership was shown by Defendant No. 1. Mere co-residence or non-separation of accounts does not amount to blending.

The property purchased with a loan after partition remains self-acquired.

The sale was for legal necessity

It was also noted that Defendant No. 1 used the sale proceeds to marry his daughter, which is considered a legal necessity under Hindu law and a valid ground for transfer of property by the karta of the family.

Key Takeaways:

• Property purchased after a valid partition of ancestral property using personal loan or separate income is self-acquired property.
• High Courts should not re-appreciate evidence unless a substantial question of law is involved.
• If self-acquired property is not voluntarily put into the joint family pool, the doctrine of blending does not apply. There must be an intention to renounce separate ownership of the property.
• The burden of proving whether the property is ancestral or purchased out of joint family funds lies on the claimant.
• Marriage expenses are valid grounds for sale of property by the payer.

Citations and References

Title of Judgment: Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 INSC 532

Date of Judgment: 22nd April, 2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan