An unproved allegation about a father's habits was not enough to undo a sale, and the trial court's decree is restored
Justices Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Mehta set aside a Karnataka High Court decree in a partition suit, holding the first appellate court ignored the evidence on record.
A trial court in Chikmagalur dismissed a partition suit in March 2002, holding that the lands had been sold to pay off the loan taken to build the family's house in Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court reversed that in April 2010, principally on the wife's assertion about her late husband's habits, and held the alienation was not supported by bona fide necessity. On 16 September 2026 the Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree, finding that the High Court had set aside a reasoned judgment without engaging with the evidence that supported it.
The family and the land
The plaintiffs were the two sons and the wife of a man who had settled in Bengaluru in 1971. On 4 May 1983 he received six items of land at a village in Chikmagalur Taluk in a family partition. During 1990-91 he constructed a house in Bengaluru on a plot owned by his wife. The lands at Chikmagalur were later sold, and the purchaser was the third defendant, who became the appellant before the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs sued for partition, challenging the alienation.
The Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chikmagalur dismissed the suit on 14 March 2002, on an appreciation of the evidence and a finding that the sale proceeds had gone towards discharging the loan incurred for building the Bengaluru house. In Regular First Appeal the High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and set that judgment aside.
What the first appellate court did not weigh
The Supreme Court identified four circumstances on the record that the High Court had not adequately considered. There was no reliable evidence supporting the allegation that the properties had been undervalued. The third plaintiff, whose assertion about the deceased's alleged vices became the foundation of the High Court's conclusion, was never examined as a witness. The first plaintiff had made admissions about other properties, which had admittedly been dealt with by his senior uncle. And the circumstances in which the Bengaluru house came to be constructed told their own story about where the sale proceeds had gone.
Taken together, the Court held, these materially affect the basis on which the plaintiffs sought partition of the suit schedule properties. Instead of weighing them, the High Court had principally relied on the assertion about the deceased's alleged vices to conclude that the alienation lacked bona fide necessity — an assertion made by a plaintiff who did not enter the witness box.
Why the trial court's view stood
The Supreme Court's conclusion is framed in the language of appellate restraint. The trial court's judgment, dismissing the suit on an appreciation of the evidence and holding that the sale proceeds had been used to discharge the construction loan, was based on a plausible and reasoned appreciation of the material on record. The High Court was not justified in interfering with it merely on the strength of an unsubstantiated allegation, and its judgment did not withstand judicial scrutiny.
One preliminary matter was cleared at the outset. Counsel for the respondents told the Court that an earlier statement about the death of one of the respondents had been made inadvertently, and that she is in fact alive, with her interests sufficiently represented by the other respondents. On that footing the matter was heard on merits.
Order
The appeal succeeded and was allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 23 April 2010 was set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 14 March 2002 were restored, with a direction that the decree be drawn accordingly. Pending applications were disposed of.