Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed by the second defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial court in a partition suit. The plaintiff, S. Sridevi (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), filed the suit claiming a half share in the suit property, which is the northern portion of property bearing No.113, 4th Main, Chamarajapet, Bangalore. The property originally belonged to Smt. Lokamma @ Sharadamma, who had two daughters, Savithramma and another. Savithramma had a son, G.V. Sriramulu Naidu, who had two sons, Prabhakar (defendant No.1) and Ethiraj (defendant No.2/appellant). The plaintiff is the wife of defendant No.1. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was purchased by her father-in-law, G.V. Sriramulu Naidu, in the name of her husband, defendant No.1, and that it was joint family property. The defendants contended that the property was purchased by G.V. Sriramulu Naidu from his own funds and was his self-acquired property, and that the plaintiff had no right to claim a share. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring her entitled to a half share. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment. The court held that the property was not joint family property but the self-acquired property of G.V. Sriramulu Naidu. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove that the property was acquired with joint family funds. The court also held that even if the property was inherited by defendant No.1 from his father, it would be his self-acquired property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not ancestral property in his hands. The plaintiff, being a daughter-in-law, is not a coparcener and cannot claim a share in the property of her father-in-law. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the person asserting that a property is joint family property, and the plaintiff failed to discharge that burden.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Presumption of Jointness - The presumption that a Hindu family is joint and that property held by a member is joint family property applies only when the family is joint and the property is acquired by the Karta or coparceners with joint family funds. When the father-in-law purchases property in the name of his son, the burden is on the person claiming it to be joint family property to prove that it was acquired with joint family funds. (Paras 10-15) B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Self-Acquired Property - Property inherited by a son from his father under Section 8 is his self-acquired property and not ancestral property in his hands vis-à-vis his own descendants. The son takes it as an individual and not as a coparcener. (Paras 16-20) C) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Coparcenary Property - After the 2005 amendment, a daughter is a coparcener by birth, but the plaintiff being a daughter-in-law is not a coparcener and cannot claim a share in the property of her father-in-law. (Paras 21-25) D) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving that the suit property was joint family property. The trial court erred in shifting the burden to the defendants. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit property is joint family property in which the plaintiff (daughter-in-law) is entitled to a share, or whether it is the self-acquired property of the father-in-law?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 23.05.2011 in O.S. No.64/2002 are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition
- Joint Family Property
- Ancestral Property
- Burden of Proof
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Section 6
- Section 4
- Benami Transaction
- Presumption of Jointness
