In Brief
A property owner purchased land after a joint family partition by borrowing from a third party and subsequently sold it to another person. The owner's sons and daughters filed a suit claiming the property was ancestral/joint family property in which they had rights. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it. The High Court restored the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that after joint family property is partitioned, it becomes the self-acquired property of each party. The mere existence of children does not make a father's self-acquired property joint family property. Since the owner acquired the property using a personal loan, not family funds, it remained his self-acquired property, which he could freely sell. The Court also criticized the High Court for re-appreciating evidence without framing a proper substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.