Back
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR
Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare – Appellant
Versus
Nanibai (Dead), through LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The plaintiff in Spl. C.S. No. 286 of 2005 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati, is the appellant before us. In one appeal, he assails certain findings recorded by a learned Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the judgment dated 24.11.2018 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009, arising therefrom. In the other appeal, his challenge is to the order dated 22.03.2019 of the very same learned Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 46 of 2019 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009.
3. Spl. C.S. No. 286 of 2005 was filed by the appellant for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which included houses and agricultural lands. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in the suit were the widow and progeny of the plaintiff’s deceased brother, Laxmanrao Navkhare. Defendant No. 7 was the wife of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed a counter-claim in the suit seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from obstructing them from carrying on the business. By judgment dated 29.02.2008, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part, holding that the
There would be presumption of jointness in a family governed by Hindu law.
The burden of proof in establishing joint family property and partition lies with the party alleging its existence. The court also emphasized the entitlement of daughters to share in joint Hindu fami....
The judgment establishes that in claims for partition of joint family properties, the burden of proof rests on the claimant to demonstrate the existence of joint ownership, and the principles of res ....
In disputes regarding partition of joint Hindu family property, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting partition, and the presumption of jointness remains unless clear evidence to the contra....
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a joint family and joint properties, which was not met by the plaintiffs.
No presumption of joint family property from family existence; claimant must prove acquisition from joint nucleus fund, especially for properties in daughters-in-law names via separate sale deeds wit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving joint family properties lies with the party making the claim, and failure to challenge the evidence or provide evidence ....
The court affirmed that partition of family properties had occurred prior to 1942, establishing individual ownership rights over properties acquired post-partition, thereby negating claims of joint f....
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
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
