1. Suit for partition and separate possession of properties and business — dispute over whether assets were ancestral/joint family property or self-acquired. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 319
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare - Appellant
Versus
Nanibai (Dead), through LRs, and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4787 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13989 of 2019) With Civil Appeal No. 4788 of 2024 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15843 of 2019)
Decided on : 08-04-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr.Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. N Rao, Adv. Mr. Akshay Mann, Adv. Dr. Navya Jannu, Adv. T.Narender Rao, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Rishab Dubey, Adv. Dr. Anurag Bharadwaj, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr.Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. N Rao, Adv. Mr. Akshay Mann, Adv. Dr. Navya Jannu, Adv. T.Narender Rao, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Rishab Dubey, Adv. Dr. Anurag Bharadwaj, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
There would be presumption of jointness in a family governed by Hindu law.
Headnote:
Hindu Law – Partition – Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – There would be presumption of jointness in a family governed by Hindu law – There is no evidence whatsoever of any such partition taking place during lifetime of sole proprietor or even thereafter – Sole proprietor did not treat garage business as his own independent enterprise at any point of time and, on the other hand, gave evidence under oath that it was a joint family business with his brother (Plaintiff) – High Court acting in second appellate jurisdiction could not have arrived at a new finding of fact without any foundation being laid therefor – Stray observation made by Judge that joint family business commenced in year 1991, based on a misreading of Appellate Court’s judgment, cannot stand – Impugned observations set aside. (Paras 25, 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff in Spl. C.S. No. 286 of 2005 on file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati, is appellant. In one appeal, he assails certain findings recorded by a Judge of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in the judgment dated 24.11.2018 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009, arising therefrom. In other appeal, his challenge is to order dated 22.03.2019 of very same Judge of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 46 of 2019 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009.
Findings of Court:
Judge of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, made a factually incorrect observation by misreading Judgment of Appellate Court and compounded that error by acting upon such erroneous observation and reviewing the judgment. Offending observation in the judgment dated 24.11.2018 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009 and the order dated 22.03.2019 in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 46 of 2019 are accordingly set aside. In consequence, Judgment dated 14.11.2008 of District Judge-III, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2008 is upheld.
Result : Civil Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claims assets were purchased from joint family business income; defendants contend assets were self-acquired and the business was not a joint family venture. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 )
3. The court held the deceased's sworn admission of Karta status binding and found the High Court's finding on the business commencement date to be a misreading. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Sworn statements made by a deceased person against their proprietary interest are binding on successors-in-interest under Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 25 )
5. Review order and erroneous observation set aside; judgment for partition and separate possession upheld. (Para 29 )
6. When is a statement made by a deceased person relevant and binding on their successors?
Under Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, statements made by a person who is dead are relevant when they are against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the maker. Such sworn affirmations are binding upon the maker's successors-in-interest. (Para 25 )
7. Can a High Court arrive at new findings of fact during a second appeal?
A High Court acting in second appellate jurisdiction cannot arrive at a new finding of fact without a proper foundation being laid for it in the record. (Para 27 )
8. Does the existence of a Joint Hindu Family automatically presume that property is joint family property?
No, there is no automatic presumption that property is joint family property solely due to the existence of a Joint Hindu Family. However, evidence of joint management and sworn admissions of Karta status can establish the joint nature of the business. (Para 15 , 28 )
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 plaintiff was entitled to partition and separate possession of a half-share in the agricultural land in Survey No. 22/1-A at Mouza Shendola, Taluk Teosa, District Amravati. According to the Trial Court, this agricultural land alone was proved to be ancestral property, belonging to the plaintiff and his deceased brother, while the rest of the properties were the self-acquired properties of late Laxmanrao. The Trial Court further held that late Laxmanrao was the sole proprietor of the business concern named ‘Gajanan Automobiles’ and the plaintiff had no interest therein. The counter-claim of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was accordingly decreed.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2008 before the learned District Judge-III, Amravati. By judgment dated 14.11.2008, the Appellate Court held in favour of the plaintiff on all counts and decreed his suit in its entirety. The plaintiff was held to have a half-share in all the suit properties. The counter-claim of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was dismissed.
5. Assailing this reversing judgment of the Appellate Court, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The second appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 24.11.2018. Significantly, the learned Judge observed therein that the conclusion of the Appellate Court that the business was joint from 1991 was not a perverse finding. On the strength of this observation, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed a review petition in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 46 of 2019 contending that as the garage business started by Laxmanrao was a joint business only from 1991, properties which were acquired prior thereto would not be liable for partition, as such properties could not be treated as joint properties of late Laxmanrao and his brother, the plaintiff. They prayed for modification of the judgment dated 24.11.2018 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009 by excluding two plots of land in Survey No. 17/2 at Mouza Saturna and the agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 6/1 and 59/07 at Mouza Nimbura. By order dated 22.03.2019, the very same learned judge, who had dismissed the second appeal earlier, accepted their plea and held that, while maintaining the decree for partition and separate possession as passed, the properties covered by Exs. 205, 224 and 226 in Survey No. 17/2 at Mouza Saturna and the properties in Survey No. 59/07 at Mouza Nimbora covered by Ex. 316 and the property in Survey No. 6/1 at Mouza Nimbora covered by Ex. 317 were liable to be excluded from partition. The aforestated order dated 22.03.2019 and the observation in the second appeal judgment that the garage business became joint only in the year 1991 are called in question presently before us.
6. Parties sh
