{"id":4851,"date":"2025-02-15T17:31:22","date_gmt":"2025-02-15T12:01:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=4851"},"modified":"2025-03-12T01:28:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T19:58:28","slug":"adiveppa-v-bhimappa-2017-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/adiveppa-v-bhimappa-2017-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Adiveppa v. Bhimappa 2017 (Case Summary)\u200b"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"4851\" class=\"elementor elementor-4851\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Adiveppa v. Bhimappa 2017 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-multiple-peo_cYtzytOXR7C0Cda1iZgkpQ_NI6m6KaxTweIhSBDp9Yagw.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-4854\" alt=\"Adiveppa v. Bhimappa (2017)\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-multiple-peo_cYtzytOXR7C0Cda1iZgkpQ_NI6m6KaxTweIhSBDp9Yagw.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-multiple-peo_cYtzytOXR7C0Cda1iZgkpQ_NI6m6KaxTweIhSBDp9Yagw-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-multiple-peo_cYtzytOXR7C0Cda1iZgkpQ_NI6m6KaxTweIhSBDp9Yagw-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-multiple-peo_cYtzytOXR7C0Cda1iZgkpQ_NI6m6KaxTweIhSBDp9Yagw-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-multiple-peo_cYtzytOXR7C0Cda1iZgkpQ_NI6m6KaxTweIhSBDp9Yagw-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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. <\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/adiveppa-v-bhimappa-2017-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Adiveppa_v_Bhimappa\" >Facts of Adiveppa v Bhimappa<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/adiveppa-v-bhimappa-2017-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/adiveppa-v-bhimappa-2017-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/adiveppa-v-bhimappa-2017-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Adiveppa_v_Bhimappa\" >Judgment of Adiveppa v Bhimappa\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/adiveppa-v-bhimappa-2017-case-summary\/#Read_the_Judgment_Below\" >Read the Judgment Below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Adiveppa_v_Bhimappa\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Adiveppa v Bhimappa<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case was a family dispute between Adiveppa and Yamanappa (The Plaintiffs) and their uncle (Bhimappa) and aunt (Gundavva), the defendants\u00a0 over agricultural lands.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Adiveppa, the head of the family, owned several acres of agricultural land and died intestate (without a will).<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After the death of Adiveppa and Hanamappa, disputes arose over the ownership of the family\u2019s agricultural lands.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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 \u2018B\u2019, \u2018C\u2019, and \u2018D\u2019 and a 4\/9th share in the ancestral properties.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Schedule \u2018B\u2019 and \u2018C\u2019 properties were claimed to be self-acquired by the plaintiffs. Schedule \u2018D\u2019 properties were described as ancestral properties, and the plaintiffs sought partition, alleging that no prior partition had occurred.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The defendants denied the claims, stating that all the properties (including Schedules \u2018B\u2019, \u2018C\u2019, and \u2018D\u2019) were ancestral properties.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">An oral partition had taken place on October 28, 1993, during the lifetime of the plaintiffs\u2019 father, Hanamappa.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The oral partition had been acted upon, and all family members had taken possession of their respective shares.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The plaintiffs\u2019 claims were therefore misconceived and unsupported by evidence.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the properties in Schedules \u2018B\u2019 and \u2018C\u2019 were self-acquired or ancestral?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition and declaration of ownership?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the properties in Schedules \u2018B\u2019 and \u2018C\u2019 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.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Karnataka High Court upheld the Trial Court\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Adiveppa_v_Bhimappa\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Adiveppa v Bhimappa\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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 \u2018D\u2019 properties were ancestral, this presumption extended to Schedules \u2018B\u2019 and \u2018C\u2019 in the absence of evidence of self-acquisition. The plaintiffs were required to prove that Schedules \u2018B\u2019 and \u2018C\u2019 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\u2019 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.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Read_the_Judgment_Below\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Read the Judgment Below<\/strong><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ad13ebd elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"ad13ebd\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Adiveppa-v-Bhimappa-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4854,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[121,114,108,12],"class_list":["post-4851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-family-law-ii","tag-hindu-joint-family","tag-hindu-succession-act-1956","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4851"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4851\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4859,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4851\/revisions\/4859"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4854"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}