Angadi Chandranna vs Shankar & Ors.

Held: The High Court can go into findings of facts u/s.103 CPC only under certain circumstances – In the instant case, the so-called substantial question of law framed by the High Court does not qualify to be a substantial question of law, rather the exercise of the High Court is a venture into the findings of the First Appellant Court by re-appreciation of evidence – s.103 permits the High Court to go into the facts only when the courts below have not determined or rendered any finding on a crucial fact, despite evidence already available on record or after deciding the substantial question of law, the facts of a particular case demand re-determination – When the First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has considered the entire evidence and rendered a finding, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence just because another view is possible, when the view taken by the First Appellate Court is plausible and does not suffer from vice in law – Therefore, the High Court erred in setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court – On facts, the plaintiffs did not question the partition deed effected among the brothers – After the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family properties and the shares of the respective parties become their self-acquired properties – Hence, the suit property acquired by defendant no.1 became his self-acquired property, on being sold by his brother to him, vide sale deed dated 16.10.1989 – No evidence was let in by the plaintiffs to prove that the other properties allotted to defendant no.1 yielded income and that it was only from that entire income that the suit property was purchased – Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the earlier decisions, in considered opinion of this Court, defendant no.1 acquired the suit property out of the loan obtained from DW3 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 – Besides, the High Court erroneously applied the doctrine of blending under the Hindu joint family law by relying upon judgments that are not applicable to the case on hand, re-appreciated evidence without framing any substantial question of law and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is restored. [Paras 12, 12.1, 18, 19, 19.2, 20] Principles/Doctrines – Doctrine of blending of self-acquired property with joint family – Discussed. [Para 20] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.103 – Discussed. [Paras 12, 12.1]