Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for partition filed by the widow and children of late Praveen Deshpande against his parents and brothers seeking one-sixth share in ancestral joint family properties. The plaintiffs claimed that the properties, including agricultural lands and a house in Takali Village, were ancestral and acquired from joint family nucleus. The defendants contended that certain lands were self-acquired properties of defendant No.2 (mother) purchased from her father's pension funds, and another land was self-acquired of defendant No.1 (father) purchased by selling gold ornaments of defendant No.2. They also relied on a partition deed dated 09.12.1996, which allegedly partitioned ancestral properties, allotting shares to minor plaintiffs with defendant No.5 as guardian. The trial court after recording evidence held that the properties were joint family properties, the partition deed was not binding on plaintiffs as plaintiff No.1 (natural mother) was not a signatory and the minors were wrongly represented without her consent. The suit was decreed granting one-sixth share to plaintiffs. The first appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the trial court's findings, holding that defendants failed to prove self-acquisition and the partition deed was invalid. The High Court, considering the second appeals, found that both courts below had concurrently found as a matter of fact that the properties were joint family and the partition deed not binding. No substantial question of law was made out; the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. Thus, the appeals were dismissed at admission, confirming the decree of partition and separate possession of one-sixth share.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Joint Family Property - Self-Acquired Property - Burden of Proof - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The lower courts held that the properties claimed as self-acquired were actually purchased out of joint family funds and from income of ancestral lands; defendants failed to discharge burden of proving self-acquisition. No substantial question of law arises from these findings of fact (Paras 9-12). B) Family Law - Partition - Validity of Partition Deed - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Partition deed dated 09.12.1996 was not binding on plaintiffs as plaintiff No.1 had not agreed and the mother's guardianship was bypassed; thus the earlier partition cannot bar fresh suit for partition (Paras 10-12). C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - In a second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to only substantial questions of law; where both courts below have concurrently held on facts that properties are joint family and partition deed invalid, and no perversity shown, no substantial question of law arises; appeals dismissed at admission stage (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals raise any substantial question of law for consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Both Regular Second Appeals are dismissed at admission stage. The concurrent findings of fact that the suit properties are joint family properties and not self-acquired, and that the partition deed dated 09.12.1996 is not binding on the plaintiffs, are affirmed. Plaintiffs are entitled to one-sixth share in the suit properties as decreed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Burden of proof for self-acquired property rests on the person asserting it
- Properties standing in name of family members presumed joint unless proved otherwise
- A partition deed is not binding on those not parties to it
- In second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless a substantial question of law arises
