MARABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus NINGAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 08-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 435 
MARABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. 
. 
V. 
NINGAPPA (0) BY LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3495 of 2001) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14 - Rights of female 
Hindu under - Held: Any property of a female Hindu is her . C 
absolute property - She has full ownership over any property 
that she has acquired on her own or as stridhana - She may 
dispose of the same as per her wish, and the same shall not 
be treated as a part of the joint Hindu family property - There 
is no presumption that of jqint family property, and there must 
be some strong evidence in .favour of the same - On facts, 
D 
propositor after maffiage lived in the paternal house of his wife 
('PJ - 'P' was gifted a propsrty by her father by a gift deed at 
the time of marriage, and continued_to be in possession and 
purchased more properties from the income of the land gifted 
to her - Propositor except having some income from tenanted 
E 
land had no personal income nor agricultural income which 
he could utilize for purchase of any property- Suit for partition 
by son of 'P' alleging that the entire property was a joint family 
property - Trial court rightly held that lands other than the 
tenanted portion as occupied by propositor, were the absolute 
F 
self acquired properties of 'P' which she had purchased/ 
acquired from the income and funds from the lands gifted by 
'P', whereas the order of the High Court that the properties to 
the suit were joint family properties and the parties to the suit 
were entitled for 1!3rd share in those properties, set aside. 
G 
'S' and 'P' got married in 1924 and at the time of the 
marriage, the father of 'P' gitted her land A7 under a Gift 
Deed. 'S' after his marriage, continued to reside in his in-
435 
H 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A laws house and during his life time, he had no other 
source of income except from. the tenanted lands. 'P' 
purchased certain lands A(4)-A(6) under a Sale Deed from 
the income of the land gifted to her by her father. 
Thereafter, with the income from the said two lands, 'P' 
,8 purchased another land A(S)-(12). 'S' died in the year 
1951 leaving behind four sons and one daughter-'M' 
(appellant-defendant), 'N' (respondent-plaintiff), 'B' 
(deceased); and 'SN' and 'C' (pre-deceased). 
C 
In her life time 'P' relinquished her share in land A(4)-
A(6) in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, subsequent to 
an oral partition, she gave one part of the property A(8)· 
A(12) to the respondent and other to legal heirs of 'B'. In 
1984, 'P' executed a will of 'Stridhana' land to her 
daughter, 'SN'. Thereafter 'P' died. The respondents filed 
D a suit for partition seeking separate possession of 1/3rd 
share each alleging that the entire property is the joint 
family property and not the personal property of 'P'. The 
trial court held that except tenanted portion the said 
properties were self acquired properties of 'P'. The High 
E Court held that the properties described in the suit are 
joint family properties and the parties to the suit are 
entitled for 1/3rd share in those properties. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. 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 
G clarifies that a Hindu woman has full ownership over any 
property that she has acquired on her own or as 
stridhana. As a consequence, she 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. There 
H is no presumpti9n that of joint family property, and there 
MARABASAPPA (0) BY LRS. & ORS. v. NINGAPPA 437 
(D) BY LRS. & ORS. 
must be some strong evidence in favour of the same. 
A 
[Paras 21 and 22] [451-E-G] 
Appasaheb Chamdgade v. Devendra Chamdgade and 
Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 521 - referred to. 
2.1 The High Court did not accept the findings and 
B 
conclusion reached by the trial court. The High Court 
wrongly shifted the burden of proving that the said lands 
were a part of the self acquired property of 'P' and not a 
part of the joint family property of the appellants-
defendents, when there was no affirmative proof of C 
anything contrary. The High Court erred in shifting the 
burden of proof on the appellants, especially
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.