Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR.LRS.) – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
PURUSHOTTAM & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 6875 of 2008 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6876-6877 of 2008
Decided on : 03-04-2020
(A) Hindu Law – Partition – Burden is on person who alleges that property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same – Normally, an HUF can only comprise of all family members with head of family being Karta – Some property has to be nucleus for this joint family – There is no pleading that Propositus and Sons constituted a HUF – There is no allegation that this family had some property as its nucleus – Disruption would arise only if there was an allegation that earlier there was a HUF – Mortgage deed clearly reflects that all family members including minors were shown to be owners of properties by mortgaging the same – An admission made by a party is only a piece of evidence and not conclusive proof of what is stated therein – Admission was with regard to a trading family and not HUF – Not only jointness of family has to be proved but burden lies upon person alleging existence of a joint family to prove that property belongs to joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that property is nucleus of joint Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus – This has not been proved in present case – Merely because business is joint would not raise presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family – Sale deeds and recitals were never challenged by plaintiff or his predecessors – This would indicate that jointness of property if any had ceased because of some family arrangement or partition which may have happened much earlier – Both courts below have come to conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were getting any proceeds from income of agricultural land – This also indicates that land was not joint – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 28 and 29)
(B) Doctrine – Doctrine of Election – A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time – In respect of Wills, this doctrine has been held to mean that a person who takes benefit of a portion of Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of Will – Where one party knowingly accepts benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, it is estopped to deny validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order – Doctrine of election is a facet of law of estoppel – A party cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time – Any party which takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is mentioned in the document. (Paras 24 and 25)
Facts of the Case:
Partition of family property. Allegation was that all the properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint were properties of the Hindu Undivided Family (for short HUF) and, therefore, the plaintiff sought partition of the same by metes and bounds as per his share. Trial court decided all issues in favour of plaintiff and decreed suit holding that all properties were joint family properties and that plaintiff had 2.38% share in the same. Contesting defendants filed appeal in High Court and decree of partition by trial court was set aside which order was upheld by High Court in review.
Findings of the Court:
As far as the agricultural lands are concerned the trial court decreed the suit in respect of the agricultural lands on the basis that Madhav Prashad and his brother Umrao Lal and their successors constituted an HUF. The said lands having been bought out of the funds of the HUF would be treated to be the property of the HUF, even though they may have been entered in the name of any other person. In view of the above discussion, and the fact that we have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there is an HUF, we are not inclined to agree with the finding of the trial court.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
One Mangat Ram was a resident of Village Narnaul in Rajasthan. He had four sons viz., Madhav Prashad, Lal Chand, Ram Chand and Umrao Lal. Ram Chand was adopted by one Shri Gauri Mal of Gwalior. Lal Chand had four sons viz., Sri Ram, Hari Ram, Govind and Laxmi Narayan. Madhav Prashad had no issues. Therefore, he adopted Hari Ram, the son of Lal Chand. Ram Chand also had no issues and he adopted Shriram, son of Lal Chand. It is the admitted case of the parties that both Ram Chand and Lal Chand severed connections with the family and had no connection with the property of the family. This left two branches in the family of Mangat Ram, one being Madhav Prashad and his descendants through his son Hari Ram, the other branch consisted of Umrao Lal and his three sons viz., Brij Mohan, Rameshwar and Radha Krishan. The plaintiff Bhagwat Sharan, who filed the suit is the son of Radha Krishan and grandson of Umrao Lal.
2. The above facts are not disputed. The parties are also ad idem that Madhav Prashad shifted from his native village and came to Ashok Nagar, about 70 years prior to the filing of the suit. The suit was filed in 1988. Thus, Madhav Prashad must have shifted in or around 1918. It is also not disputed that Madhav Prashad started working as munshi of the then zamindar of the area and was thereafter known as munshi Madhav Prashad. The dispute basically starts hereinafter. The plaintiff claims that his grandfather Umrao Lal also came to Ashok Nagar at about the same time and started doing grain business. Thereafter, Madhav Prashad left the work of munshi and both the brothers started grain business in the name of "Munshi Madhav Prashad", by setting up a shop. The case of the plaintiff is that both Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal lived together and carried on the business jointly and purchased various properties described in para 9 of the plaint. Six properties comprise of six different houses. The properties at para 9(2) comprised of various agricultural lands in different villages. The case of the plaintiff is that all these houses have been constructed jointly by Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal, and Madhav Prashad being the elder brother was the karta and was running the joint family in this capacity. It was further alleged in the plaint that Madhav Prashad being the karta managed to get some of the joint family property recorded in his own name. It was also alleged that after the death of Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal, Hari Ram, adopted son of Madhav Prashad (who had died by the time the suit was filed in 1988) was the karta of the joint Hindu family and in this capacity some of the properties of the Joint Hindu Family were recorded in his name.
3. It is not disputed that Madhav Prashad died some time in the year 1935, Umrao Singh died some time in 1941-42 and Hari Ram died in the year 1978.
4. In respect of agricultural lands it was pleaded that all these agricultural lands were under the joint cultivation of the family and the full accounts of the cultivation was kept by late Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal, and after their death by Hari Ram. After the death of Hari Ram, his widow Rajjo Devi (Def.no.6), used to look after cultivation on behalf of the family. It was further alleged in the plaint that Hari Ram had transferred some of the agricultural lands in the name of his brother-in-law, son, son-in-law and other relatives as benami transactions, which was obvious from the fact that the General Power of Attorney was executed by the beneficiaries of these transactions in favour of Hari Ram. However, this fact was not revealed to the branch of the family who were descendants of Umrao Lal. Basically, the allegation was that all the properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint were properties of the Hindu Undivided Family (for short HUF) and, therefore, the plaintiff sought partition of the same by metes and bounds as per his share.
5. For the sake of convenience it would be appropriate to extract para 18 of the plai
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
