Supreme Court Upholds Concurrent Findings on Family Property Dispute: Adiveppa vs. Bhimappa (2017)

Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2017. Citation: (2017) INSC 782. Judges: Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. The Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute over property ownership within a family, focusing on whether certain properties were self-acquired or ancestral. This case highlights the importance of evidence in proving property claims within a Hindu joint family. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between the sons of Hanamappa (Adiveppa and Yamanappa, the appellants) and their uncle Bhimappa and aunt Gundavva (the respondents). The dispute concerns the ownership and partition of agricultural lands. Adiveppa, the head of the family, had two sons, Hanamappa and Bhimappa, and a daughter, Gundavva. Hanamappa had two sons, Adiveppa and Yamanappa. After the death of Adiveppa (the head of the family) and Hanamappa, a dispute arose between the two sons of Hanamappa and their uncle and aunt regarding the ownership of the agricultural lands.

The appellants claimed that certain properties (Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’) were their self-acquired properties, while other properties (Schedule ‘D’) were ancestral, in which they claimed a 4/9th share. The respondents contended that all properties were ancestral and had been orally partitioned in 1993, with each family member receiving their share.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the properties in Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ were self-acquired. It also held that while the properties in Schedule ‘D’ were ancestral, they had been partitioned earlier. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the principle of Hindu law that presumes every Hindu family to be joint in food, worship, and estate. The Court cited Mulla’s Hindu Law, 22nd Edition, Article 23, which states, “Presumption as to co-parcenary and self acquired property”. This presumption continues unless a division is proven. The burden of proof lies on the member claiming self-acquired property within a joint family. The court emphasized that the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove their case with proper pleadings and evidence.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments:

• The appellants contended that the properties in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ were their self-acquired properties and not part of the ancestral properties.
• They claimed a 4/9th share in the ancestral properties listed in Schedule ‘D’.
• They argued that no partition had taken place in respect of Schedule ‘D’ properties.
• They submitted that the Trial Court had recorded some findings against the defendants in relation to their rights in the suit properties, and the appellants were entitled to get its benefit.

Respondents’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that all the suit properties, including those in Schedules ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’, were ancestral properties.
• They claimed that an oral partition had occurred on 28.10.1993, and all family members were in possession of their respective shares.
• They contended that the partition was acted upon by all family members, including the appellants’ father, Hanamappa, without any objection.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issues revolved around:

1. Whether the properties in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ were self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs.
2. Whether the properties in Schedule ‘D’ were ancestral properties and if a partition had occurred.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mulla – Hindu Law, 22nd Edition Article 23: The Court relied on this authority to establish the legal presumption of a joint Hindu family and the burden of proof on the member claiming self-acquired property.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence presented by the plaintiffs to prove their claim that the properties in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ were self-acquired. The court also noted that the defendants were able to demonstrate that an oral partition had taken place, which was acted upon by all family members. The concurrent findings of the lower courts also weighed heavily in the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Court observed, “It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleading and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof.” The Court also stated, “In our considered opinion, the legal presumption of the suit properties comprising in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ to be also the part and parcel of the ancestral one (Schedule ‘D’) could easily be drawn for want of any evidence of such properties being self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs.” Furthermore, the Court noted, “The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts, which do not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, are binding on this Court.”

Key Takeaways

• The initial burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their claim to self-acquired property within a joint Hindu family.
• Documentary evidence, such as sale deeds and proof of payment, is crucial in proving self-acquired property claims.
• Oral partitions, if proven and acted upon, are valid.
• Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court unless they are perverse.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reaffirms the established principles of Hindu law regarding joint families and the burden of proof in property disputes. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove claims of self-acquired property within a joint Hindu family. The case underscores that the initial burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and that oral partitions, when proven, are valid.