Adiveppa v. Bhimappa 2017 (Case Summary)

This case involves a dispute over ancestral property between members of a Hindu joint family. The Supreme Court ruled on the burden of proof in such cases, reaffirming that in the absence of proof of division, the legal presumption of joint family property applies.

Table of Contents

Facts of Adiveppa v Bhimappa

The case was a family dispute between Adiveppa and Yamanappa (The Plaintiffs) and their uncle (Bhimappa) and aunt (Gundavva), the defendants over agricultural lands.
Adiveppa, the head of the family, owned several acres of agricultural land and died intestate (without a will).
He was survived by his wife Yamanavva and their three children: Hanamappa (deceased), father of the plaintiffs; Bhimappa, the first defendant and brother of Hanamappa and Gundavva, the second defendant and sister.
After the death of Adiveppa and Hanamappa, disputes arose over the ownership of the family’s agricultural lands.
The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, seeking Declaration of ownership and partition of properties described in Schedules ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ and a 4/9th share in the ancestral properties.
Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties were claimed to be self-acquired by the plaintiffs. Schedule ‘D’ properties were described as ancestral properties, and the plaintiffs sought partition, alleging that no prior partition had occurred.
The defendants denied the claims, stating that all the properties (including Schedules ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’) were ancestral properties.
An oral partition had taken place on October 28, 1993, during the lifetime of the plaintiffs’ father, Hanamappa.
The oral partition had been acted upon, and all family members had taken possession of their respective shares.
The plaintiffs’ claims were therefore misconceived and unsupported by evidence.

Issues framed

Whether the properties in Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ were self-acquired or ancestral?
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition and declaration of ownership?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the properties in Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ were their self-acquired properties. No documentary evidence was provided. The oral partition of ancestral properties in 1993 was valid and had been acted upon by all family members. Since partition had already occurred, the plaintiffs had no right to seek partition again.

The Karnataka High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. It held that the findings of the Trial Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no errors were found.

Judgment of Adiveppa v Bhimappa

The Supreme Court applied the principles given under Hindu law, there is a presumption that all family properties are jointly owned unless there is evidence of partition or self-acquisition. The burden of proving that a property is self-acquired lies on the person asserting it. This principle is rooted in general evidence law and the rules of Hindu joint family law. Oral partitions are recognized under Hindu law if they are acted upon and accepted by all family members.

The court applied the principle that Hindu families are presumed to be joint unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since the plaintiffs admitted that Schedule ‘D’ properties were ancestral, this presumption extended to Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ in the absence of evidence of self-acquisition. The plaintiffs were required to prove that Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ were self-acquired properties. Since they failed to produce any documentary evidence (e.g., sale deeds or proof of purchase) or explain the source of funds, the court ruled against them. The court accepted the defendants’ claim that an oral partition had taken place in 1993 and had been acted upon by all family members. The plaintiffs failed to challenge this partition at the time it occurred or provide evidence that partition had not taken place.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims. The decisions of the lower courts were affirmed, and the oral partition of 1993 was upheld.