Supreme Court clarifies partition of self-acquired property in family disputes: B.R. Patil vs. Tulsa Y. Sawkar (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 09 February 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 123

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a suit for partition of properties be dismissed if all family properties and members are not included? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving a dispute over the partition of self-acquired properties. The court clarified that a suit for partition cannot be dismissed merely for non-joinder of certain properties or family members, especially when the properties in question are the self-acquired assets of the deceased. This judgment provides important guidance on the scope of partition suits and the rights of legal heirs.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute between the children of the late R.M. Patil regarding the partition of his properties. R.M. Patil had three sons and two daughters. The first plaintiff, a daughter, and the second plaintiff, the daughter-in-law of R.M. Patil, filed a suit seeking partition of the properties left by R.M. Patil. The first defendant, one of the sons, contested the suit, claiming that some properties were not included and that other family members were not made parties to the suit.

The plaintiffs sought partition of their 1/5th share each in properties including a house in Dharwar, a site in Dharwar, a house in Bangalore, a car, and library books. They also sought accounts of the rentals received by the first defendant from some of the properties. The first defendant claimed that the properties were purchased from joint family funds and that he had acquired title to one of the properties through ouster.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs the devolution of property upon the death of a Hindu. The relevant provisions include:

• Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section deals with the general rules of succession in the case of a male Hindu dying intestate (without a will). It specifies the order in which different classes of heirs inherit the property.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is also relevant, particularly:

• Order I Rule 3: This rule specifies who may be joined as plaintiffs in a suit.
• Order II Rule 3: This rule deals with the joinder of causes of action in a suit. It allows a plaintiff to unite multiple causes of action against the same defendant.

The court also considered the principle that a suit for partition should ordinarily include all joint properties, but recognized that this is not an absolute rule and admits of exceptions.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Defendant No. 1) Submissions:

• Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties: The suit should be dismissed because the brother of the appellant’s father (Shri Ningana Gowda Patil) was not made a party. This brother was a co-owner/coparcener of the joint family properties and his absence makes the suit bad in law.

• Non-Inclusion of All Properties: The suit is bad because all joint family properties were not included in the plaint schedule. The properties that were not included yielded income and were used to purchase the plaint schedule properties. These properties should have been included for a valid partition decree.

• Plaint Schedule Properties Purchased from Joint Family Funds: The plaint schedule properties were purchased from the funds of the joint family, which consisted of the appellant’s grandfather and his two sons. Therefore, the properties should be treated as joint family properties and not the self-acquired property of R.M. Patil.

• Ouster: The appellant is in exclusive possession of item No. 3 (a house) and has acquired title by ouster. He relies on a notice issued in June 1991, which he claims proves his exclusive possession. He argued that he has no other house and that it would be inequitable to evict him.

• Inclusion of Properties in the Name of Defendant No. 2: Certain properties standing in the name of defendant No. 2 should also be included in the partition as they were purchased with joint family funds.

Respondents’ (Plaintiffs) Submissions:

• Cause of Action: The cause of action for the suit arose upon the death of R.M. Patil in 1977. The suit is for claiming rights over the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil, not joint family properties.

• No Exclusion of Joint Family Properties: There is no basis to the claim that joint family properties were excluded. The focus is on the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil.

• Ouster: The appellant’s pleading is one of partial ouster, which is not recognized in law. The appellant is only in possession of the ground floor of the house, while the second plaintiff has possession of the first floor. The appellant’s own prayer for a 1/4th share admits the title of other co-owners, except the first plaintiff, which is impermissible.

• Non-Impleadment: The non-impleadment of the other branch of the family does not prejudice public interest. The properties alleged to exist have not been established in evidence.

• Properties in the Name of Defendant No. 2: The properties in the name of defendant No. 2 were acquired with his own funds. The trial court’s finding was correctly overturned by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the suit must fail on account of non-inclusion of certain properties and non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the plaint schedule properties are the separate properties of Shri R.M. Patil?
3. Whether the appellant has established ouster in respect of item No. 3?
4. Whether the properties standing in the name of the second defendant should be included in the partition?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy [AIR 1957 SC 314]:* The Court relied on this case to explain the requirements for establishing adverse possession and ouster between co-heirs. It emphasized that mere possession is not enough; there must be an open assertion of hostile title.
• Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by lrs. v. Jagadish Kalita and Others [(2004) 1 SCC 271]:* The Court used this case to reiterate the requirements for establishing ouster among co-sharers, highlighting the need for a declaration of hostile animus, long and uninterrupted possession, and the exercise of exclusive ownership.
• Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and Another [AIR 1999 SC 1341]:* The Court referred to this case to explain the relationship between joinder of parties and joinder of causes of action.
• Mayne’s ‘Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage’ 17th Edition, Paragraph 487: The Court cited this to explain that while a partition suit should ordinarily include all joint properties, this rule is not absolute and admits exceptions.
• Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The Court applied this provision to determine the rights of the legal heirs to the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil.
• Order I Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Court used this rule to discuss the joinder of parties in the suit.
• Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Court referred to this rule to discuss the joinder of causes of action in the suit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Admission by the Appellant: The appellant’s admission that the plaint schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil was a crucial factor in the court’s decision. This admission was made both in the pleadings and in the appellant’s deposition.
• Failure to Establish Joint Family Property: The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence, extent, and identity of the alleged joint family properties. The court noted that the appellant did not produce the necessary documents, despite claiming to possess them.
• Lack of Ouster: The court found that the appellant’s claim of ouster was not valid because it was a plea for partial ouster and the appellant was not in exclusive possession of the entire property. The court also noted that the appellant’s possession was referable to his lawful title as a co-owner.
• Self-Acquired Nature of Properties: The court emphasized that the suit was primarily for the partition of the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil, and not for joint family properties.
• Independent Acquisition by Defendant No. 2: The court accepted that the properties standing in the name of the second defendant were acquired with his own resources and not from joint family funds.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s admission and the lack of evidence for joint family properties, but also considered legal principles such as ouster and the nature of self-acquired property.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the evidence and the legal principles involved. The final decision was reached by carefully evaluating the factual matrix and applying the relevant legal provisions.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The appellant’s admission that the suit properties were self-acquired by his father.
• The appellant’s failure to establish the existence of joint family properties.
• The appellant’s failure to establish ouster.
• The self-acquired nature of the suit properties.
• The independent acquisition of properties by the second defendant.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is true that the law looks with disfavor upon properties being partitioned partially. The principle that there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one. It admits of exceptions.”

“The possession of a co -owner however long it may be, hardly by itself, will constitute ouster. In the case of a co -owner, it is presumed that he possesses the property on behalf of the entire body of co -owners.”

“The very essence of adverse possession and therefore ouster lies in a party setting up a hostile title in him self.”

Key Takeaways

• Partition of Self-Acquired Property: The Supreme Court clarified that self-acquired properties of a deceased person can be partitioned among legal heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act.
• Non-Joinder of Parties: A suit for partition cannot be dismissed merely for non-joinder of certain family members or properties, especially when the properties in question are the self-acquired assets of the deceased.
• Ouster: A plea of ouster by a co-owner must be based on clear evidence of hostile animus, exclusive possession, and open denial of the title of other co-owners. Partial ouster is not recognized.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proving that properties are joint family properties lies on the party asserting it. Similarly, the burden of proving ouster lies on the co-owner claiming it.
• Independent Acquisition: A co-owner can acquire separate properties with their own funds, and such properties will not be included in the partition of joint family properties.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment provides important guidance for future cases involving partition of self-acquired properties and clarifies the principles of ouster and non-joinder of parties. It reinforces the rights of legal heirs to inherit and partition the self-acquired properties of their deceased relatives.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their respective costs. The matter of actual division of properties was left to the final decree proceedings.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that a suit for partition of self-acquired properties cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of other family members or properties, especially when the properties in question are the self-acquired assets of the deceased. The court also clarified that a plea of ouster must be based on clear evidence of hostile animus and exclusive possession, and that partial ouster is not recognized.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces existing principles related to partition suits, ouster, and the nature of self-acquired property. It clarifies the application of these principles in the context of a family dispute over the partition of self-acquired properties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the first defendant, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the partition of the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil. The court clarified that a suit for partition cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of other family members or properties and reinforced the principles of ouster and the rights of legal heirs to inherit self-acquired properties. This judgment provides crucial guidance for future cases involving similar issues and reinforces the importance of clear evidence and admissions in legal proceedings.