Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court second-appeal judgment that had restored a partition decree in favour of the sons and daughters of the vendor, holding that the High Court re-appreciated evidence without any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and misidentified the suit property. Property that a coparcener obtains on partition becomes his self-acquired property; the suit land, bought by the father from his brother with a loan, was his self-acquired property, which he could validly sell, and the doctrine of blending did not arise.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could, in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, set aside the first appellate court's findings of fact by re-appreciating the evidence without a substantial question of law.
- Whether the suit property, purchased by Defendant No. 1 from his brother after a registered partition among the brothers, was his self-acquired property or joint family or ancestral property acquired from a family nucleus.
- On whom lies the burden of proving that property is joint family property and what proof of a nucleus is required.
- Whether the sale of the suit property by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2 was valid, and whether the doctrine of blending applied.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. Following Jaichand, Chandrabhan and the cases cited therein, the Court held that the High Court cannot interfere with the first appellate court's findings of fact merely because another view is possible; the question framed by the High Court was not a substantial question of law and its exercise was a re-appreciation of evidence. (¶¶ 6, 12, 12.1, 12.2, 20)
- Section 103, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court may determine an issue of fact only where the courts below have not determined a crucial fact despite evidence on record, or where, after deciding the substantial question of law, the facts require re-determination; for the second limb there must first be a decision on a substantial question of law. Neither condition was met. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 12.2)
- Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The authority to reconsider the evidence lies with the first appellate court under Section 96, which had analysed the entire oral and documentary evidence and dismissed the suit; the High Court lacked that authority under Section 100 except in the circumstances of Section 103. (¶ 12.2)
Held
- Under Section 100 CPC the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view for a plausible finding of the first appellate court, the final court of facts, unless the finding is contrary to law or settled precedent, based on inadmissible evidence or on no evidence; where the High Court's determination is only a re-appreciation of existing evidence with no legal question to answer, not even a question of law, much less a substantial one, is involved. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 12.2)
- Section 103 CPC permits the High Court to go into facts only where the courts below have not rendered a finding on a crucial fact despite evidence on record, or where after deciding the substantial question of law the facts demand re-determination; the second limb requires a prior decision on a substantial question of law. (¶ 12.1)
- There is no presumption that property is joint family property merely because a joint Hindu family exists; the party asserting it must prove it. Only if a nucleus from which the property could have been acquired is proved does the onus shift to the person claiming self-acquisition, and the nucleus must be established as a fact, not presumed on probabilities. (¶¶ 13, 19)
- After joint family property is partitioned, each sharer's allotment becomes his separate and self-acquired property over which he has absolute rights of sale, transfer or bequest. The suit property, allotted to the vendor's brother in the 1986 partition and purchased by Defendant No. 1 in 1989 with a loan from DW3 rather than from any proved family nucleus, was his self-acquired property, and the sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 2 is valid. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 19.2)
- Oral evidence of a cash payment at partition that finds no recital in the registered partition deed cannot be believed, as the contents of a document prevail over contrary oral evidence; the mere existence of sons and daughters in a joint Hindu family does not convert the father's separate property into joint family property. (¶ 19)
- Use of sale proceeds or joint family income for maintenance, education or the marriage of children is the duty of a karta and is to be treated as expenditure out of legal necessity; the evidence that Defendant No. 1 performed his daughter's marriage from the sale consideration showed the sale was for the benefit of the family. (¶¶ 19, 19.1, 19.2)
- Self-acquired property becomes joint family property under the doctrine of blending only if the owner voluntarily throws it into the common stock with a clear intention to abandon his separate claim; permitting joint use, generosity or failure to keep separate accounts does not establish abandonment. The question did not arise because the suit property was different from the property allegedly received under a will, and the High Court erred in applying the doctrine and in treating a different property as the suit property. (¶¶ 12.2, 19.2, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment in RSA No. 1417 of 2006 set aside; judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dismissing the partition suit restored; parties to bear their own costs; connected applications disposed of.