Supreme Court Ends 31-Year-Old Property Dispute With Key Judgment On Ancestral Property

In a property dispute case that lasted 31 years, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgement on April 22, 2025. The court ruled that after the joint properties of a Hindu family are partitioned, the property shares received by the parties become their self-acquired property. Notably, for a self-acquired property, the owner does not need anybody’s approval to sell, transfer, or bequeath it. 

The case involved C. Jayaramappa, his two brothers, C. Thippeswamy and C. Eshwarappa, who inherited their joint family property following the death of their father, Channappa, and his children.

• On May 9, 1986, Jayaramappa and his two brothers divided the property among themselves through a partition deed

• After a few years, on October 16, 1989, C. Jayaramappa bought the property share of his elder brother (C Thippeswamy) in exchange for money and executed a registered sale deed

• Later, in March 1993, he sold a part of this property to another person named Narasimhamurthy

When Did The Dispute Start?

His children questioned the sale and approached the court. The case filed in 1994 took 31 years to resolve due to multiple appeals made at every level of the judicial process. Over the years, the case moved through the trial court, civil court, Karnataka High Court, and ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Arguments:

The children argued that the property was ancestral and even though their father had bought it, it was bought with joint family funds. Also, as coparceners, they also have the right in the said property, thus, without their consent, it cannot be sold. 

C. Jayaramappa argued that he purchased the property from his brother with his own money and a loan taken from Narasimhamurthy. He worked extra hours to pay back the money and finally in 1993, sold four acres of land to fully pay back the loan. Therefore, the suit property (the property in question) should be considered his self-acquired property and nobody’s consent should be needed for selling it.

Children also argued that all three brothers (their father and his two elder brothers) also received Rs 10,000 each at the time of partition. The court noted no mention of this in the partition deed. Keeping in view only the oral evidence by a witness, the court said, “It is well established that the contents in a document would prevail over any contrary oral evidence”, and set this argument aside. 

Court Observation

Regarding the previous proceedings, the court noted that the High Court did not check how the property was acquired and instead went into a fact-finding inquiry in the second appeal. It said, “The High Court even failed to notice that the partition took place in 1986, whereas, the suit property was purchased only in 1989. This deviation, in our view, has further contributed to the miscarriage of justice.”

“That apart, the evidence on record also displays that the object of the sale of the suit property was for the benefit of the family and therefore, we also disagree with the findings of the High Court on this aspect”, said the court.

When Ancestral Property Becomes Self-Acquired Property?

The court said, “As per Hindu law, after partition, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish. Accordingly, the properties bequeathed through partition, become the self-acquired properties of the respective sharers."

Court Order

The court held, “In our considered opinion, Defendant No.1  (C. Jayaramappa) acquired the suit property out of the loan obtained from Narasimhamurthy 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.”

It set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restored the judgement and decree of the First Appellate Court, saying that C. Jayaramappa has the right to sell the suit property and sale deed executed in 1993 is valid.