ANGADI CHANDRANNA versus SHANKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1417 · Decided: 22-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1417 : 2025 INSC 532
Angadi Chandranna 
v. 
Shankar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 2025)
22 April 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The main dispute in the lis is, whether the suit property was 
ancestral or self-acquired property of defendant no.1.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.96, 100, 103 – Defendant 
no.1 and his two brothers CT and CE divided the joint 
family properties under a registered partition deed dated 
09.05.1986  – Subsequently, defendant no.1 purchased the 
suit property from his brother CT by way of registered sale 
deed dated 16.10.1989 – Thereafter, defendant no.1 sold the 
suit property to defendant no.2 by way of registered sale 
deed dated 11.03.1993 – Plaintiffs (sons and daughters of 
defendant no.1) instituted suit seeking partition and separate 
possession of suit property – Trial decreed suit in favour of 
plaintiffs – Defendant no.2 moved a regular appeal – First 
Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial 
Court – Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed second regular appeal – The 
High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the 
First Appellate Court – Correctness:
Held: The High Court can go into findings of facts u/s.103 CPC 
only under certain circumstances – In the instant case, the so-called 
substantial question of law framed by the High Court does not qualify 
to be a substantial question of law, rather the exercise of the High 
Court is a venture into the findings of the First Appellant Court by 
re-appreciation of evidence – s.103 permits the High Court to go 
into the facts only when the courts below have not determined or 
rendered any finding on a crucial fact, despite evidence already 
available on record or after deciding the substantial question of law, 
* Author
1418
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the facts of a particular case demand re-determination – When the 
First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has considered 
the entire evidence and rendered a finding, the High Court cannot 
re-appreciate the evidence just because another view is possible, 
when the view taken by the First Appellate Court is plausible and 
does not suffer from vice in law – Therefore, the High Court erred 
in setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate 
Court – On facts, the plaintiffs did not question the partition deed 
effected among the brothers – After the joint family property has 
been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family 
properties and the shares of the respective parties become their 
self-acquired properties – Hence, the suit property acquired by 
defendant no.1 became his self-acquired property, on being sold by 
his brother to him, vide sale deed dated 16.10.1989 – No evidence 
was let in by the plaintiffs to prove that the other properties allotted 
to defendant no.1 yielded income and that it was only from that 
entire income that the suit property was purchased – Taking note 
of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles 
enunciated in the earlier decisions, in considered opinion of this 
Court, defendant no.1 acquired the suit property out of the loan 
obtained from DW3 and not from the income derived from the 
nucleus funds or joint family funds, and hence, the suit property 
should be considered as his self-acquired property – Besides, the 
High Court erroneously applied the doctrine of blending under 
the Hindu joint family law by relying upon judgments that are not 
applicable to the case on hand, re-appreciated evidence without 
framing any substantial question of law and allowed the appeal 
filed by the plaintiffs – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of 
the High Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of the 
First Appellate Court is restored. [Paras 12, 12.1, 18, 19, 19.2, 20]
Principles/Doctrines – Doctrine of blending of self-acquired 
property with joint family – Discussed. [Para 20]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.103 – Discussed. 
[Paras 12, 12.1]
Case Law Cited
Chandrabhan (Deceased) through L.Rs & Ors. v. Saraswati & 
Ors., 2022 INSC 997 : [2022] 7 SCR 295 : MANU/SC/1224/2022; 
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai 
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
1419
Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors.
[2019] 13 SCR 152 : (2020) 16 SCC 255; Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder 
Singh & Ors. [2013] 7 SCR 897 : (2013) 9 SCC 419 – relied on.
Jaichand (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Sahnulal & Anr. [

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.