Supreme Court of India· 21 April 2025

Is property bought in the name of one member of a joint family necessarily his separate property?

MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANR v. GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)

2025 INSC 517
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Or.23 r.3A Code of Civil Procedu…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Where the purchase was made from the family funds, the property is joint family property even though it stood in the name of an individual member. Here the suit property, though purchased in the name of the appellants' father, was purchased from family funds and was therefore part of the ancestral property, so it could properly be partitioned among the father, his brothers and the grandfather.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 23 rr. 3, 3A — Or. 2 r. 2 — s.96(3) — Compromise decree — Consent decree — Recall application — Res judicata — Joint family property — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 23 r. 3A — Compromise decree — Bar to a fresh suit — Held: No suit lies to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful; the only remedy is a recall application before the court which recorded the compromise. (¶11, 12) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 23 r. 3 — s.96(3) — Consent decree — Estoppel — Held further: Before passing a decree on a compromise the Court must satisfy itself that the suit has been adjusted by a lawful compromise; a consent decree then operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding until set aside by that court. (¶10, 12) Joint family property — Purchase in the name of a member from family funds — Held further: Property purchased in the name of a member out of family funds is joint family property, and a son whose interest was represented by his father in that partition cannot afterwards call the compromise an act of fraud. (¶7, 8) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 2 r. 2 — Res judicata — Re-agitating a partitioned claim — Held further: A later suit which omits properties that were part of the earlier suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2, and a claim to property already partitioned cannot be re-agitated; appeal dismissed. (¶14, 15)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 7There are concurrent findings of the Courts below against the appellants. The appellants vehemently argue that since the suit property is not an ancestral property, it cannot be partitioned amongst their father, grandfather and father’s brothers. However, the appellants miserably failed to prove that the suit property is not a part of the ancestral property. After going through the records, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court correctly concluded that although the suit property was purchased in the name of the appellants’ father, it was purchased from the family funds and, thus, it is a joint family property.

Paragraph 8Since the suit property was not taken into consideration during the partition in the year 1974, the grandfather of the appellants filed a suit seeking partition in which the suit property was equally divided amongst the appellants’ father, his 5 brothers and appellants’ grandfather. The appellants’ interest was represented by their father, and pursuant to the compromise decree, the appellants’ father received his part of the share. Subsequently, as per the decree dated 02.08.2002 passed in Suit no.219/1998 filed by the appellants, the appellants have also been held jointly entitled to a half share of their father’s share of the suit property. In other words, appellants were jointly held entitled to 0.5 acres of land. We are unable to understand how the appellants can claim it to be an act of fraud.

Acts & Sections

Or.23 r.3A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Or.23 r.3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.96(3) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Or.2 r.2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Or.43 r.1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Indian Contract Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANR v. GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can a compromise decree be challenged by filing a fresh suit?Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does an appeal lie against a consent decree?Under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, what must a court satisfy itself of before passing a compromise decree?Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when is a later partition suit barred by Order 2 Rule 2 and by res judicata?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections