Introduction

• The case deals with the determination of ancestral property and self-acquired property of father under Hindu Law.

Facts

• The appellant, his father (defendant No. 1), and his brother (defendant No. 2) were legally entitled to a one-third share in the partitioned property.
  • The dispute arose because the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were the children of the first wife of the appellant's father.
• Following the death of the first wife, the father remarried, leading to family disputes.
  • In addition to the partitioned properties, the claim also encompassed certain other items.
• Defendant No. 1 refuted the existence of any joint family property, asserting that both the land and the house were the father's self-acquired properties bequeathed to him through a will.
  • Other immovable properties, cash, furniture, and utensils were also claimed as his self-acquisitions.
• The Trial Court determined that the properties bequeathed to defendant No. 1 by his father were ancestral properties.
• The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff as appellant.

Issues Involved

• Whether the properties that defendant No. 1 received under his fathers will be considered ancestral or self-acquired property in his possession concerning his son?

Observation

• It was determined by Supreme Court that the mere transfer of property from a father to his son does not automatically classify it as ancestral property for the son.
• The father, at the time of making the gift, has the authority to specify whether the recipient is to exclusively own it or if it is intended for the benefit of his family branch.
• If the deed of gift or will explicitly outlines such provisions, the son's interest in the property would be contingent upon those terms.
• Considering the established legal principle that a Mitakshara father possesses an absolute right to dispose of his self-acquired property without objection from his male descendants, the court opined that it cannot be universally asserted that property bequeathed or gifted to a son should invariably be regarded as ancestral property in the hands of the donee in which his sons would acquire co-ordinate interest.

Conclusion

• The SC overturned the judgment of High Court and allowed the appeal.