If Self Acquired Property Of Member Of Joint Hindu Family Is Put Into 'Common Hotchpot', It Becomes Joint Family Property: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that if a member of a joint hindu family voluntarily throws his self-acquired property into a common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim over it and to render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property.
The Court observed thus in an appeal preferred by the father and son (defendants) who challenged the judgment by which the partition suit was decreed.
A Division Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja observed, “Law relating to blending of separate property with those of joint family is well settled. If a member of a joint hindu family voluntarily throws his self-acquired property into a common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim over it and to render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property. Such an intention can be inferred by the words and if there are no words, then from his conduct."
Advocate Sadanand Shastri represented the appellants while Advocate B Ramesh represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
A woman had bought suit properties vide registered sale deeds in 1944, 1950, and 1953. She had two sons and a daughter too and there was a family partition by which these properties were partitioned between the children. Suit properties were those that had fallen to the share of a man who had one son and four daughters. A suit for partition was filed and the Trial Judge having considered pleadings of the parties and weighed both oral and documentary evidence, entered the judgment and decree that were put in challenge by the defendants.
The Trial Judge in his wisdom treated the subject properties as being ancestral ones and therefore, all the grandchildren of the aforesaid woman were entitled to a share. In the absence of a Counter Claim or the like, 1/6th share was granted to the plaintiff alone. The counsel for the appellants argued that the properties having been bought by the said woman, she was the absolute owner and was in exclusive possession.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “It hardly needs to be stated that Mithakshara is a monumental work of sage Vignaneshwara of Marathur, Kalaburagi District in Karnataka. It is his commentary on Yaajnavalkya Smruti. There is a lot of literature in Hindu Law which recognizes the doctrine of blending of individual’s property into joint familys’ so that it becomes the family property for enuring to the benefit of all its members.”
The Court further said that the law relating to blending of separate property with those of joint family is well settled and hence, if a member of a Joint Hindu Family voluntarily throws his self-acquired property into a common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim over it and to render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property. It added that such an intention can be inferred by the words and if there are no words, then from his conduct.
“It hardly needs to be stated that every Hindu family is presumed to be joint although such a presumption does not extend to there being joint family properties. … Partitioning of the self acquired property amongst all the members of the family by the matriarch raises a very strong presumption as to the subject properties having been put into a common hotchpot and that there is nothing on record to rebut the same. That being the position, there is an eminent case for the invocation of the doctrine of common hotchpot”, it observed.
The Court also took note of the fact that the appellant was not given any share in the property and she was left high & dry in her matrimonial home which was addressed by the Trial Court.
“Lastly, there is one more aspect that comes in the way of Appellants’ laying a challenge to the judgement & decree. Admittedly, under 1970 Partition Deed, Smt.Eramma had given shares in her properties in favour of two sons & one daughter. … All the parties to the 1970 Partition Deed, are estoped from contending to its contra. Ordinarily, a self-acquired property cannot be the subject matter of partition”, it said.
The Court observed that all the parties to the partition of 1970 having treated the subject property as being joint family property, they cannot contend to the contra, more particularly when others have acted on that premise and altered their position to the detriment and further, permitting the appellants to contend to the contrary amounts to permitting them blowing hot and cold at one breath, which the law shuns.
“All the above being said, there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the Appellants: after the partition of 1970, the properties fell into the hands of the 1 st Appellant who is now dead & gone. Some properties have been given to some daughters; money also have been spent for the marriage of the son & daughters. Some developments have been done by investing huge sums. Equities need to be adjusted. … In view of that, all such aspects need to be examined by the FDP Court, if & when initiated. In that connection, all contentions of the parties need to be kept open and accordingly, they are for being treated in the contemplated Final Decree Proceedings”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court refused to entertain the appeal.
Cause Title- T. Narayana Reddy & Anr. v. Nirmala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:6869-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Sadanand Shastri
Respondents: Advocates B. Ramesh, A G Ravikumar, Venkateshwara Balu, and Mahadevaswamy.
