The court determined that properties claimed by the appellant were self-acquired by her grandfather and not ancestral, dismissing her claim for partition.
In a recent decision by the Karnataka High Court, the bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf upheld the trial court's dismissal of a partition suit filed by Smt. Usha N. Swamy against her father, M. Venkataswamy, and others. The appellant had sought an equal share in certain properties, claiming them as ancestral.
The case revolved around four properties, identified as Schedule 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D'. Usha N. Swamy contended that these were ancestral properties acquired by her father from her grandfather and thus eligible for partition among the family members under Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the High Court concluded that the properties were the self-acquired assets of her grandfather, which were inherited by her father through a family partition, thereby making them the absolute property of her father and not coparcenary properties.
The court noted that the properties were initially acquired by Muniyappa, the grandfather, and later distributed among his children, including the appellant’s father. Testimonies, especially from PW2, the appellant's uncle, confirmed that these properties were self-acquired by Muniyappa and not ancestral. The court emphasized that under Hindu law, self-acquired property does not automatically transform into ancestral property merely because it passes down generations.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, citing that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the ancestral nature of the properties. The court reiterated the principle that a plaintiff must establish their case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defense. Moreover, it underscored that properties acquired by partition retain their character as separate properties unless shown otherwise.
The decision aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the distinction between self-acquired and ancestral properties in Hindu law. The judgment also highlighted the burden of proof resting on the claimant to establish the ancestral nature of properties in partition suits.
Bottom line:-
Hindu Law - Self-acquired property of a Mitakshara father does not automatically become ancestral property in the hands of his descendants. A coparcener can claim partition only in coparcenary property and not in self-acquired property, even if inherited through partition or succession.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6, Evidence Act, 1872
Usha N. Swamy v. M. Venkataswamy, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2925562
