Summary
Self-acquired property becomes joint-family property by blending only upon proof of a clear intention to abandon separate rights. Joint residence, family borrowing or generous use of property and income did not alone prove that intention. The High Court improperly reappreciated evidence in second appeal to reverse concurrent findings against blending, without a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court restored dismissal of the partition and injunction suits.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established intentional blending of self-acquired property with joint-family property.
- Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent findings through a fresh factual assessment in second appeal.
Held
- Section 100 jurisdiction required a substantial question of law. A different factual appreciation did not justify intervention; manifest perversity or legally material evidentiary error could do so. The formulated questions and reappraisal here did not satisfy that requirement. (¶ 8.1–8.5)
- The father’s property came through settlement from his mother’s sister’s husband. His later settlement deeds and will supported treatment as separate property; the High Court’s contrary blending conclusion was unsustainable. (¶ 9)
- Blending required voluntary abandonment of separate rights with clear intention. Shared residence, loans taken by family members, allowing family use, or generous expenditure of separate income did not by themselves establish abandonment. (¶ 9.1)
- The concurrent no-blending findings rested on the evidence, including the documents reconsidered by the High Court. Restoration of the trial court’s dismissal, rather than a fresh partition decree, was required. (¶ 9.1–10)
Result
Both appeals allowed. High Court common judgment in Second Appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2009 set aside; trial court’s common judgment and decree dismissing both suits restored. No order as to costs.