1. Dispute over whether life insurance policies taken by a coparcener and funded by joint family assets belong to the coparcenary or the individual's heirs. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 157
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th September, 1959.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Smt. Parbati Kuer, Appellant
Versus
Sarangdhar Sinha and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 330 and 331 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for the Appellant; Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate, (M/s. P. B. Ganguly, A. B. Saran and P. K. Chatterjee, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 1; M/s. D. Govardhan and R. C. Prasad, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2.
Important Points
Life insurance policies paid for using joint family funds are considered joint family assets, and their proceeds belong to the coparcenary by survivorship, unless there is clear evidence that the parties intended the policies to be the separate property of the insured.
Subject
Civil Law - Hindu Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Hindu Law - Joint Family Assets - Life Insurance Policies - Where premia are paid out of joint family funds, the proceeds of the insurance policies are generally treated as joint family assets and not the separate property of the insured member, unless there is a clear indication of an intention to treat them as separate assets. (Paras 4, 10)
(B) Burden of Proof - In cases where it is established that premia were paid from joint family funds, the burden lies on the party claiming the policy as separate property to prove such a claim. (Para 4)
(C) Joint Family Business - If the payment of premia is recorded in the accounts of a joint family business and proceeds of matured policies are deposited back into joint family accounts, such transactions are viewed as those of the joint family. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A coparcener in a joint Hindu family took out life insurance policies. Following his death, a dispute arose between the surviving coparceners and the widow regarding whether the insurance proceeds belonged to the joint family by survivorship or to the widow by succession. Evidence showed that the premia for these policies were paid from the accounts of the joint family business.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the premia were paid from the joint family funds, as evidenced by the account books of the family business. Furthermore, the proceeds of other policies that matured during the deceased's lifetime were deposited into joint family accounts, indicating that the insurance transactions were viewed as joint family assets.
Issues: Whether life insurance policies taken by a coparcener, with premia paid from joint family funds, constitute joint family assets or the separate property of the insured.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when premia are paid from joint family funds, the resulting insurance proceeds belong to the joint family. The stated purpose of the policy for the benefit of the insured's immediate family does not override the fact that joint family funds were used, and there was no evidence to suggest the funds ceased to be joint assets.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Burden of Proof - In cases where it is established that premia were paid from joint family funds, the burden lies on the party claiming the policy as separate property to prove such a claim. (Para 4)
(C) Joint Family Business - If the payment of premia is recorded in the accounts of a joint family business and proceeds of matured policies are deposited back into joint family accounts, such transactions are viewed as those of the joint family. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A coparcener in a joint Hindu family took out life insurance policies. Following his death, a dispute arose between the surviving coparceners and the widow regarding whether the insurance proceeds belonged to the joint family by survivorship or to the widow by succession. Evidence showed that the premia for these policies were paid from the accounts of the joint family business.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the premia were paid from the joint family funds, as evidenced by the account books of the family business. Furthermore, the proceeds of other policies that matured during the deceased's lifetime were deposited into joint family accounts, indicating that the insurance transactions were viewed as joint family assets.
Issues: Whether life insurance policies taken by a coparcener, with premia paid from joint family funds, constitute joint family assets or the separate property of the insured.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when premia are paid from joint family funds, the resulting insurance proceeds belong to the joint family. The stated purpose of the policy for the benefit of the insured's immediate family does not override the fact that joint family funds were used, and there was no evidence to suggest the funds ceased to be joint assets.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.B.SARAN, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, J.B.DADACHAN, L.K.JHA, P.B.GANGULY, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.C.Prasad, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
A.B.SARAN, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, J.B.DADACHAN, L.K.JHA, P.B.GANGULY, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.C.Prasad, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
Table of Contents
2. Whether insurance policies are inherently separate property and if premia paid from joint funds constitute appropriation to the individual coparcener. (Para 4 )
3. Account books showed premia were paid from joint family funds and proceeds were treated as joint assets, overriding any presumption of separate property. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
4. Life insurance policies funded by joint family assets belong to the joint family, unless there is clear evidence of intent to treat them as separate property. (Para 10 )
5. Appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does a life insurance policy taken by a coparcener automatically belong to the joint family?
No. While there is a general presumption that such policies are the separate property of the assured, this is rebutted if there is clear indication that the member did not intend to treat it as a separate asset or if it was funded by joint family assets. (Para 10 )
7. What is the legal effect when life insurance premia are paid out of joint family funds?
If the joint family incurs the expense of purchasing the policies from its funds, anything obtained through those funds, including the insurance proceeds, belongs to the joint family. (Para 9 )
8. Does stating that a policy is for the benefit of the assured's family make it separate property?
Not necessarily. The critical factor is whether the policy was taken without detriment to joint family funds. If funded by the joint family, the proceeds belong to the joint family regardless of the stated intent in proposal forms. (Para 9 )
9. Does a coparcener's denial of liability for a karta's debts preclude them from claiming joint family property by survivorship?
No. A coparcener may successfully argue that borrowings by a karta were not for legal necessity or family purpose without being estopped from claiming other joint family properties by survivorship. (Para 8 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : These two appeals have been filed by the same appellant (Smt. Prabati Kaur) with certificates granted by the High Court of Patna under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution read with Ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By these two appeals, the appellant impugns the common judgment but separate decrees of the High Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 69 and 91 of 1947 dated September 9, 1953.
2. The facts are as follows : One Ramdin Sinha had three sons, Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha, Sarangdhar Sinha and Ramji Sinha. The last two were the step-brothers of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha. Ramdin Sinha died in 1903, as it is now admitted, in a state of jointness with his three sons, and the coparcenary also continued till the death of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha on October 27, 1936. Ramdin Sinha had started a printing and publishing business in Patna known as Khadga Vilas Press, hereinafter referred to as the Press, and left also vast movable and immovable properties in Patna and Ballia District. Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha had three daughters, one by his third wife and two by his fourth wife. These daughters were defendants along with the present appellant in the Court of First Instance. Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha died on October 27, 1936, leaving extensive properties.
3. Included in the property were stocks, shares and securities and three life insurance policies with the Great Eastern Life Assurance Co. Ltd., which was the fifth defendant in the suit. After the death of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha, the widow, Parbati Kaur, applied to the District Court for a succession certificate, and obtained an order in her favour. We were informed that she could not act on the order granting the certificate to her, because she could not furnish security. The present suit was filed by the two step-brothers of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha for a declaration that they were entitled to the monies due under the insurance policies and the shares, stocks and securities together with interest and other benefits, as the surviving coparceners. This suit was opposed on various grounds by the answering defendants, and the trial Judge held that the stocks, shares and securities belonged to the coparcenary, but that the insurance policies were the private property of Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha and the widow was entitled to succeed to them. Against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Patna, two appeals were filed by the opposing parties. The High Court by its judgment under appeal, decide the entire suit in favour of the plaintiffs, and held that the insurance policies also formed the assets of the coparcenary, to which the plaintiffs were entitled as survivors. The appellant, therefore, obtained two certificates from the High Court, and filed these two appeals. As regards Appeal No. 331 of 1955, it is sufficient to say that it was not pressed before us, and must, therefore, be dismissed.
4. The appellant fought the case only in respect of the three insurance policies, each of Rs. 17,000, and contended that the decision of the High Court reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Patna was erroneous. The contention that there was a partition between the step-brothers in 1906 was abandoned in this Court, in view of the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The case of the appellant in respect of the insurance policies was based on the following pleas : About the time Ram Ran Vijaya Sinha took out these policies, he also procured two other policies on the lives of his two step-brothers with the same Company for a sum of Rs. 25,000 each. The submission of the appellant was that this was a provision for the wives and children of the three coparceners, and the proceeds were not meant to form joint family assets. The appellant submitted that there used to be maintained an Amanat khata in the account books of the Press, wherein sums taken by each brother were deposited separately to be withdrawn later. The payment of the premia towards these five insurance policies was thus a paym
