Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that after a partition, each party receives a separate and distinct share which becomes their self-acquired property with absolute rights to sell, transfer, or bequeath. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• The case involves a property dispute over land measuring 7 acres 20 guntas in Mahadevapura Village, Karnataka. 
• The appellant (Defendant No.2) purchased this property from Defendant No.1 via a registered sale deed dated March 11, 1993. 
• Defendant No.1 had earlier purchased this property from his elder brother C. Thippeswamy via a registered sale deed dated October 16, 1989. 
• Before that, Defendant No.1 and his two brothers (C. Thippeswamy and C. Eshwarappa) had divided their joint family properties through a registered partition deed dated May 9, 1986. 
• The respondents (Plaintiffs) are the sons and daughters of Defendant No.1, who filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the property. 
• The trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them partition rights. 
• The First Appellate Court overturned this decision, ruling in favor of Defendant No.2. 
• The High Court of Karnataka then reversed the First Appellate Court's decision, reinstating the original judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. 
• The central dispute is whether the property was self-acquired by Defendant No.1 (and thus his to sell) or whether it remained ancestral property in which his children had rights by birth. 
• The appellant argues the property was self-acquired using personal funds and loans, while the respondents claim it was purchased using joint family funds. 
• The respondents' position is that even after partition, property received remains ancestral for male issues who acquire interest by birth. 
• The case has now reached what appears to be the Supreme Court of India on appeal from Defendant No.2. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The central issue in this dispute concerns whether the suit property was ancestral or self-acquired property of Defendant No.1. 
• The High Court's framing of a substantial question of law was inappropriate as it essentially involved re-appreciation of evidence rather than addressing a genuine legal question. 
• According to established legal principles, there is no automatic presumption that property is joint family property merely because a joint Hindu family exists. 
• The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property belongs to the joint family. 
• If such party establishes the existence of a nucleus from which joint family property could be acquired, then the presumption shifts, requiring the other party to prove the property was self-acquired. 
• The plaintiffs consistently claimed that Defendant No.1 purchased the suit property using family nucleus funds, specifically income derived from lands allotted to him, earnings from coolie work, cash received during partition, and money from their grandmother Mallamma. 
• Based on this claim, the plaintiffs asserted the property remained ancestral and they had rights as co-parceners. 
• The evidence presented by the defendants showed that Defendant No.1 purchased the property with his own funds and a loan from DW3-Narasimhamurthy. 
• Multiple witnesses testified about this loan and its subsequent repayment through the sale of other land. 
• The sale deed explicitly characterized the property as self-acquired. 
• The court found no sufficient evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims about family nucleus funds and noted contradictions between oral testimony and documentary evidence regarding the alleged Rs.10,000 payment at partition. 
• Under Hindu law, after a partition, each party receives a separate and distinct share which becomes their self-acquired property with absolute rights to sell, transfer, or bequeath. 
• The evidence established that Defendant No.1 acquired the suit property through a loan, not from joint family funds. 
• Defendant No.1 used the proceeds from selling the property partly for his daughter's marriage, which the court considered an act of necessity and duty as a Kartha. 
• Regarding the doctrine of blending, the court clarified that self-acquired property can only become joint family property if voluntarily contributed to the common stock with clear intention to abandon separate claims. 
• Mere joint use of property or acts of generosity do not constitute such abandonment of separate property rights. 
• In this case, the doctrine of blending was inapplicable as the suit property was determined to be self-acquired. 
• The court concluded that the suit property should be considered Defendant No.1's self-acquired property, making his sale to Defendant No.2 legally valid and binding.

What is Joint Family Property and Self Acquired Property?

• Joint family property, also known as ancestral property under Hindu law, refers to property that has been inherited by a Hindu from his father, father's father, or father's father. 
• Joint family property belongs collectively to all members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), with male members acquiring an interest in it by birth. 
• Under the traditional Hindu law, male descendants up to three generations from the original owner acquire a birthright in joint family property. 
• No single coparcener (member with birthright) can claim a specific portion of joint family property until partition, as each has an undivided right in the whole property. 
• The Karta (usually the eldest male member) manages joint family property but cannot alienate it except for legal necessity, benefit of estate, or with consent of all coparceners. 
• After the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, daughters also acquire birthright in joint family property equal to sons. 
• Self-acquired property, by contrast, is property that an individual has acquired through his own efforts, without using any joint family resources or nucleus. 
• Self-acquired property may be obtained through personal income, individual enterprise, or personal skill without drawing upon ancestral resources. 
• The owner of self-acquired property has absolute rights over it, including the right to sell, mortgage, gift, or bequeath it without requiring consent from other family members. 
• Self-acquired property does not automatically become joint family property merely because the owner has sons or daughters. 
• A person can voluntarily convert his self-acquired property into joint family property through the doctrine of "blending," but this requires clear intention to abandon separate rights. 
• When joint family property is partitioned, the divided shares become self-acquired property of the respective recipients. 
• The income generated from self-acquired property remains self-acquired, unless specifically blended with joint family property. 
• The mere fact that other family members used the property or benefited from it does not automatically convert self-acquired property into joint family property. 
• The burden of proving that property is joint family property lies on the person making such a claim, while the burden shifts to the person claiming it as self-acquired if evidence of existing nucleus is established.