Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by the descendants of Nama and Maruti against the legal heirs of Tukaram, claiming that 24 agricultural lands at Baner were joint family properties. The original ancestor Bhiku Khandu died in 1928 leaving three sons: Nama, Tukaram, and Maruti. The plaintiffs alleged that the suit lands were purchased out of joint family funds during the lifetime of the three brothers, but for convenience, the lands at Mulkhed were shown in the names of Nama and Maruti as Kartas, while the Baner lands were entered in Tukaram's name. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit lands were joint family properties. The lower appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit for partition. The defendants appealed to the High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the burden of proof. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence to show that the suit lands were purchased from joint family funds or that they were ancestral. The mere fact that the parties were members of a joint family does not raise a presumption that all properties held by a member are joint. The court found that the lower appellate court's judgment was perverse and based on conjectures. Consequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the appellate decree, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - Plaintiffs claiming partition must prove that suit properties were acquired from joint family funds or are ancestral - Mere fact that parties were members of a joint family does not raise presumption that all properties held by a member are joint - Held that plaintiffs failed to discharge burden of proof (Paras 4-6). B) Hindu Law - Partition - Suit for Partition - Suit lands purchased in name of Tukaram - No evidence of joint family funds used for purchase - Plaintiffs' own case that lands at Mulkhed were joint and Baner lands were in Tukaram's name for convenience - Held that such assertion without proof cannot sustain claim (Paras 3-5). C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Second Appeal - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - Lower appellate court reversed trial court's finding without proper appreciation of evidence - Held that second appeal is maintainable on ground of perversity (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit lands were joint family properties or self-acquired properties of Tukaram, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a share therein.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the lower appellate court set aside. Judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition
- Joint Hindu Family
- Burden of Proof
- Presumption of Jointness
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
