HINDU WOMAN HAS FULL OWNERSHIP OVER ANY PROPERTY THAT SHE HAS ACQUIRED ON HER OWN OR AS STRIDHANA

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly mandates that any property of a female Hindu is her absolute property and she, therefore, has full ownership. The explanation to sub section (1) further clarifies that Hindu woman has full ownership over any property that she has acquired on her own or as stridhana. As a consequence he may dispose of the same as per her wish, and that the same shall not be treated as a part of the joint Hindu family property.  The same has been held in ‘Marabasappa (dead) by legal heirs and others V. Ningappa (dead) by legal heirs and others’ – (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 451. The facts of the case run as follows:

Siddappa and Parwatevva got married in 1924. The father of Parwatevva gifted her land measuring 8 acres 16 guntas under registered gift deed dated 30.04.1924. Siddappa after his marriage continued to reside in his in-laws’ house.  Siddappa had no income during his life period except from the tenanted lands.  Parwatevva purchased lands measuring 19 acres and 13 guntas under a registered sale deed from the income of the land that was gifted to her by her father, on 05.10.1944. On 02.06.1951 with the income from the above two lands, she purchased another land measuring 28 acres 23 guntas.Siddappa dies during 1951. The couple had four sons and one daughter, Marabasappa, Ningappa, Bhimappa (deceased with legal heirs), Sangawwa and Channappa (predeceased without any heirs).

During her lifetime Parwatevva relinquished her share in the land purchased on 05.10.1944 in favor of the appellant Marabasappa. She also gave one part of the property purchased on 02.06.1951 to the respondent, Ningappa and another part to the heirs of Bhimappa. In June 1984 Parwatevva executed a will of ‘stridhana’ land to her daughter, Sangawwa.  She died on 8.7.1984. The present dispute is between her children and their legal heirs.

The respondent plaintiffs filed a suit before the Court of Civil Judge (‘trial court’) alleging that the entire property mentioned above is the joint family property and the same was not the personal property of Parwatevva and hence it was prayed for partition and separate possession of one third share in respect of Schedules A to C properties. Schedule A consists of agricultural lands; Schedule B consists of houses and open places and Schedule C consists of movables of all the properties held by the appellant-defendants except the plaintiff’s properties. During the pendency of the suit all the original plaintiffs and the defendants died and their legal representatives have been brought on record with the permission of the court.

Since it is a family dispute between the brothers and their heirs, it was suggested to the parties to settle the dispute through mediation and directed both the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre, Karnataka High Court, Principal Bench at Bangalore on 17.01.2001. No settlement has been reached between the parties.  Hence the trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has reached the conclusion that the properties in question are the self-acquired properties of Parwatevva. The trial court, while considering the nature of the lands, has taken into consideration the certified copy of the sale deed in respect of that land and has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence adduced by the respondent-plaintiffs to deny the fact that the lands were not purchased from the independent income of Parwatevva and hence negativated the contention of the respondent-plaintiffs that the lands were joint family property. The Trial court has also held that these lands were purchased by Parwatevva from the income derived from the stridhana lands. The Court concluded that the said property was purchased from the income derived from the two properties by Parwatevva.  

Being aggrieved against the order of the Trial Court, the parties to the suit preferred regular appeals before the High Court. The High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and took the view that apart from stridhana land, the rest of the property was a part of the joint family property purchased from the income and funds of the joint family property and therefore the decree as sought by the plaintiffs, required to be granted. Against this findings and the conclusion reached by the High Court, the appellant-defendants filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The appellant-defendant submitted the following before the Supreme Court:

• The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, had reached the conclusion that the properties in question are the self acquired properties of Parwatevva;
• The High Court, while considering the evidence on record has erroneously come to the conclusion that the property in dispute is a joint family property and therefore, the findings of the High Court are perverse;
• The High Court has committed serious error in law in holding that the disputed property is a joint family property.

The respondents have supported the findings of the High Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the sum and substance of the allegation in the suit are that out of the tenanted land of 2 acres 10 guntas, late Siddappa acquired all the other properties and therefore the properties are joint family properties, though they stand in the name of Parwatevva. The trial court has relied upon the registered gift deed and has come to the conclusion that the same was the stridhana property of Parwatevva and by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with the explanation, was the absolute property of Parwatevva and could not be blended in the joint family property. In the opinion of the Supreme Court the High Court had not accepted the findings and conclusion reached by the High Court and wrongly shifted the burden of proving that the said lands were a part of the self-acquired property of Parwatevva and not a part of the joint family property of the appellant-defendants, when there was no affirmative proof of anything contrary. The High Court has erred in shifting the burden of proof on the appellant-defendants, especially when there was nothing on record either by way or oral or documentary evidence produced by the respondent-plaintiffs before the trial court. The Supreme Court pointed out that Siddappa, after marrying Parwatevva, lived in the paternal house of his wife of Parwatevva, which fact is not denied by the plaintiffs, and Siddappa had neither personal income nor agricultural income which he could utilize for purchase of any property. The findings and the conclusion of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the respondents have not brought to the notice of Supreme Court anything contrary to take a different view. Therefore, while agreeing with the findings and the conclusion reached by the trial court, the Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the respondents.  The properties in the schedule are not the joint family properties but the absolute properties of Parwatevva which she has purchased/acquired from the income and funds from the lands. The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no presumption of joint family property and there must be some strong evidence in favor of the same. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial court and set aside the order of the High Court.