Supreme Court Upholds Oral Partition in Family Property Dispute: Nanjegowda vs. Ramegowda (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 04 December 2017

Citation: 2017 INSC 1079

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can a long-standing oral family partition be disregarded when ownership is disputed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case involving a decades-old family property division. This judgment clarifies the importance of oral partitions in family property disputes, especially when they have been acted upon for a considerable time. The bench consisted of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Navin Sinha, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The dispute involves agricultural land in Thondahalli, Bellur Hubali (Karnataka), specifically Sy.No. 44/14 B measuring 0.09 Guntas and Sy. No.44/14-D measuring 0.06 Guntas. The appellants (defendants) and the respondent (plaintiff) are first cousins, descendants of a common family. The respondent, Ramegowda, filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the appellants, Nanjegowda and another, regarding the suit land.

The respondent claimed that an oral partition had occurred in 1935 among the fathers of the plaintiff and defendants, and their uncles, where the suit land fell into the share of the respondent’s father. The respondent also claimed that family members had their names recorded in the revenue records according to their shares and that the partition was acted upon for decades without any interference. The defendants, however, began asserting their rights over the suit land, leading to the lawsuit.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff (respondent), holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and entitled to an injunction against the defendants. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. Subsequently, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of evidence related to an oral partition and the concept of adverse possession. The Court examined the factual evidence presented by both sides to determine the validity of the plaintiff’s claim of ownership based on the oral partition.

The court also considered the concept of adverse possession, noting that it cannot be claimed among family members without clear evidence of hostile intent. The Court did not cite any specific section or statute but relied on established principles of property law and evidence.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s (Respondent’s) Arguments:

• ✓ The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land based on an oral partition in 1935, which was acted upon by the family members for decades.
• ✓ The plaintiff argued that the suit land fell into his father’s share during the partition and was subsequently inherited by him.
• ✓ The plaintiff contended that the family members had their names recorded in the revenue records according to their respective shares.
• ✓ The plaintiff asserted that the defendants started asserting their rights over the suit land without any basis.

Defendants’ (Appellants’) Arguments:

• ✓ The defendants admitted the relationship and the factum of oral partition but claimed ownership based on a Release Deed from 1940.
• ✓ The defendants argued that the Release Deed gave them a share in the suit land.
• ✓ The defendants also claimed adverse possession over the suit land due to their long and continuous possession.
• ✓ The defendants relied on some mutation entries in the revenue records to support their claim of ownership.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the following key points:

1. Whether the High Court was right in reversing the findings of the lower Appellate Court.
2. Whether the defendants have any valid claim to the suit land.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The court primarily relied on the factual matrix of the case and the admissions made by the defendants.

The Court considered the following legal principles:

• ✓ Oral partition among family members, when acted upon, is a valid basis for claiming ownership.
• ✓ Adverse possession cannot be claimed among family members without a clear demonstration of hostile intent.
• ✓ Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer title in the absence of documentary proof.

Judgment

Authorities and their Use by the Court:

The Court did not cite any specific authorities, but the following principles were considered:

• ✓ The concept of oral partition was used to validate the plaintiff’s claim.
• ✓ The concept of adverse possession was used to reject the defendants’ claim.
• ✓ The principle that mutation entries do not confer title was used to reject the defendants’ claim.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the defendants admitted the existence of the oral partition and the relationship between the parties. The Court emphasized that once these facts were admitted, the burden shifted to the defendants to prove their claim, which they failed to do. The Court also highlighted the inconsistency in the defendants’ pleas, particularly their claim of adverse possession among family members.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the defendants’ arguments but found them to be inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. The Court rejected the claim of adverse possession, stating that there could be no adverse possession among family members without any animus. The Court also dismissed the relevance of the Release Deed and mutation entries, as they did not pertain to the suit land or confer title.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the Trial Court’s findings were correct and that the lower appellate court’s findings were perverse and legally unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff had established his claim based on the long-standing oral partition, which was admitted by the defendants.

The Court stated, “Once the defendants admitted these two material facts pleaded by the plaintiff then it was for the defendants to prove by leading cogent evidence as to how and on what basis they could claim to be the owner of the suit land. They failed to prove their ownership with the aid of any evidence.”

The Court further observed, “In our opinion, the stand taken by the defendants was wholly inconsistent. They first set up a plea of adverse possession but it was rightly held not proved…Even otherwise, the plea of adverse possession was wholly misconceived and untenable. It is a settled law that there can be no adverse possession among the members of one family for want of any animus among them over the land belonging to their family.”

The Court concluded, “In our opinion, it is a clear case where the plaintiff and the defendants being members of the family got their share in the family properties through an oral partition effected among their ancestral members of family and on their deaths to the surviving members by inheritance, i.e., the plaintiff and defendants. So far as the suit land is concerned, it fell into the share of plaintiff’s ancestors, which was evidenced by an oral partition duly acted upon for a long time back in 1935 and then on the plaintiff.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Oral partitions of ancestral property, when acted upon for a significant period, can be a valid basis for claiming ownership.
• ✓ Adverse possession among family members is difficult to establish without clear evidence of hostile intent.
• ✓ Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer title in the absence of documentary proof.
• ✓ Admissions made by parties in pleadings are crucial and can shift the burden of proof.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an oral partition, when admitted and acted upon for a long time, is a valid basis for claiming ownership of property. This judgment reinforces the importance of oral partitions in family property disputes and clarifies that adverse possession among family members requires clear evidence of hostile intent. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment emphasizes the importance of factual evidence and admissions in determining property rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision, which had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The Court found that the plaintiff had successfully established his claim based on the oral partition, which was admitted by the defendants. The Court rejected the defendants’ claims of adverse possession and reliance on the Release Deed and mutation entries. This judgment underscores the significance of oral partitions in family property disputes and the importance of consistent and credible evidence in establishing property rights.