Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit — Upholds Trial Court's Finding of No Joint Family Property. Court holds that plaintiffs failed to prove that suit properties were ancestral or joint family properties, and that the Will executed by the father was valid and binding.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for partition and separate possession of properties allegedly belonging to the joint Hindu family of Vishwanathrao Fating. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit properties were ancestral or joint family properties. The High Court, in appeal, affirmed the trial court's findings. It noted that the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the properties were acquired from joint family funds or that they were ancestral. The father, Vishwanathrao, had executed a Will bequeathing his self-acquired properties to some of his sons, which was held to be valid. The court also rejected the argument of adverse possession, as the properties were not joint. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - In a suit for partition, the plaintiff must prove that the property is ancestral or joint family property. Mere existence of a Hindu joint family does not give rise to a presumption that any particular property is joint. The burden lies on the party asserting jointness. (Paras 5-10)

B) Hindu Law - Will - Validity - A Will executed by the father bequeathing his self-acquired properties to some sons is valid and binding on other sons. The plaintiffs cannot claim share in properties that were never joint. (Paras 11-15)

C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - A co-owner in possession of joint property cannot claim adverse possession against other co-owners unless there is ouster. However, where property is not joint, possession of one co-owner is not adverse. (Paras 16-18)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the suit properties were ancestral/joint family properties and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition and separate possession.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Trial court's decree confirmed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Burden of proof on plaintiff to prove joint family property
  • Presumption of jointness in Hindu family
  • Validity of Will
  • Adverse possession
  • Limitation for partition suit
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 141

First Appeal No.27 of 2001

0000-00-00

Ruprao s/o. Vishwanathrao Fating and others

Vasant s/o. Vishwanath Fating and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against dismissal of partition suit

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought partition and separate possession of suit properties

Filing Reason

Appellants claimed that suit properties were ancestral/joint family properties and they were entitled to share

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed the suit, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove joint family property

Issues

Whether the suit properties were ancestral or joint family properties? Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition and separate possession?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that properties were joint family properties and they were in joint possession. Respondents contended that properties were self-acquired of the father and were bequeathed by Will.

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit for partition, the plaintiff must prove that the property is joint family property. The mere existence of a joint family does not raise a presumption that any property is joint. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that the property was acquired from joint family funds or is ancestral.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit properties are joint family properties. The Will executed by Vishwanathrao is valid and binding.

Procedural History

Original suit for partition filed by plaintiffs was dismissed by trial court. Plaintiffs appealed to High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963: Article 65
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Termination of Appointed Clerks for Non-Submission of Caste Validity Certificate Within Six Months. Collector Not Empowered to Terminate Under Section 10 of Maharashtra SC, ST, etc. Act, 2000.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit — Upholds Trial Court's Finding of No Joint Family Property. Court holds that plaintiffs failed to prove that suit properties were ancestral or joint family properties, and that the Will executed...