Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHANDRA REDDY,SYED QAMAR HASAN, JJ.
Yendapalli Venkataraju (died)
Versus
Yendapalli Yedukondalu alias Ven-kateswarlu
Appeal No. 23 of 1951against decree of S. J., Kakinada
Decided On : 03-09-1957
PARTITION - SUIT FOR - PROPERTIES IN SUIT - WHETHER ANCESTRAL OR SELF-ACQUISITION OF 1ST DEFENDANT - BURDEN OF PROOF - SHIFTING OF - FAMILY SETTLEMENT - VALIDITY - REGISTRATION - NECESSITY - HINDU LAW.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the properties described in A, B and C schedules on the basis of their being joint family properties, alleging that his grand-father Antarvedi died owning properties worth about 1,00,000/- which was improved by his son the 1st defendant in such a way that the money-lending business runs up to a tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the immovable property worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, that when differences arose among the members of the family he was put in possession of 10 acres of land the income from which he was enjoying, that when he fell ill in the year 1945 the 1st defendant took them back and that he refused to re-deliver them unless and until he gave a release in respect of his share in the family properties.
Finding of the Court:
1. The existence of joint family property is not a pre-requisite to constitute a joint family. 2. There is no presumption that the property held by a member of a joint Hindu family is joint. 3. It is for the person asserting that any item is joint to prove it to be so. 4. If it is established that the family owned joint property which might have reasonably formed the nucleus wherefrom the property in dispute could have been acquired, there is a shifting of the burden to the parties setting up exclusive title to the properties on the ground of acquisition as a result of his own exertions and without any help from the joint family property. 5. A document for the acquisition of item 4 in A schedule is not produced, but it is established beyond doubt with reference to some of the documents that it was acquired by the 1st defendant in or about the year 1937. 6. It is open to a person who has acquired properties by his own exertions to treat them as the joint family properties and in order to impress them with the latter character no formalities are necessary, the only question being one of intention on the part of the owner. 7. But the onus of proving blending is heavily on a person who claims that the owner acted in such a manner as to raise reasonable inference that he did convert this property into joint family property. 8. The arrangement disclosed by Ex. C-1 and confirmed by Exs. B-1 and B-2 was a family settlement. 9. If the arrangement of compromise is one under which a person having an absolute title to the property transfers his title in some of the items thereof to others, the formalities prescribed by law have to be complied with since the transferees derive their respective titles from the transferor. 10. If, on the other hand the parties set up competing titles and the differences are solved by the compromise there is no question of one deriving title from the other and therefore the arrangement does not fall within the mischief of S. 17 read with S. 49 of the Registration Act as no interest in property is crested or declared by the document for the first time.
Issues: 1. Whether the properties in suit were ancestral or self-acquisition of the 1st defendant? 2. Whether the family settlement was valid? 3. Whether registration of the family settlement was necessary?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the person asserting that any item of property is joint. 2. If it is established that the family owned joint property which might have reasonably formed the nucleus wherefrom the property in dispute could have been acquired, there is a shifting of the burden to the parties setting up exclusive title to the properties on the ground of acquisition as a result of his own exertions and without any help from the joint family property. 3. A person who has acquired properties by his own exertions can treat them as the joint family properties and in order to impress them with the latter character no formalities are necessary, the only question being one of intention on the part of the owner. 4. The onus of proving blending is heavily on a person who claims that the owner acted in such a manner as to raise reasonable inference that he did convert this property into joint family property. 5. A family settlement is valid even if it is not engrossed on a stamp paper and duly registered, provided that it is not by virtue of the document that the disputes were settled and the document is only a memorandum of the transaction that had already occurred.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed.
CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -
This appeal is brought by the 1st defendant from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada decreeing the plaintiffs suit for partition. The 1st defendant is the father and defendants 2 and 3 the brothers respectively of the plaintiff. Pending the suit, the 4th defendant died leaving behind him his widow who comes on record as the 6th defendant. One of the tenants is impleaded as the 5th defendant. Defendants 7 to 13 were added supplementally as they claim certain items of the property in their possession as belonging to the joint family.
2. The facts material for the decision of the appeal may be briefly recalled :
The parties are Telis governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law and are residents of Tuni. The father of the 1st defendant was one Antarvedi belonging to the neighbouring village called Thetagunta and after his marriage with Kondamma he came away to Tuni and took up residence in his father-in-laws house. Antarvedi died on 8-1-1901, survived by his widow Kondamma, 1st defendant and three daughters by name Mangayamma, Ammanna and Veeramma the last two being defendants 8 and 9. The 1st defendant who was very young at the time was brought up by his grand-mother Somamma and mother Kondamma and the former gave him some properties which he invested in business and acquired with the aid of it considerable properties, movable and immovable.
In or about the year 1941, disputes arose between the plaintiff and his father which resulted in an arrangement by and under which the four sons together were given Rs. 8,000/- ; some residential houses and about ten acres of land. They were divided in equal moieties by the four sons. Not satisfied with this, the plaintiff laid the present action claiming a l/5th share in the properties described in A, B and C schedules. Schedule A relating to lands, B to houses and sites and C to cash, pledges and other movables on the basis of their being joint family properties, alleging that his grand-father Antarvedi died owning properties worth about 1,00,000/- which was improved by his son the 1st defendant in such a way that the money-lending business runs up to a tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the immovable property worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, that when differences arose among the members of the family he was put in possession of 10 acres of land the income from which he was enjoying, that when he fell ill in the year 1945 the 1st defendant took them back and that he refused to re-deliver them unless and until he gave a release in respect of his share in the family properties.
3. The answer of the 1st defendant to the suit was that the properties in suit belonged to him exclusively in which none of his sons had any interest and that in any event the arrangement, whereunder each of the sons was a recipient of about 10 acres of wet land, cash of Rs. 2,000/- and a house to live in, was binding on them and therefore the present suit for partition was not maintainable.
4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement supporting the 1st defendant. The 3rd and 4th defendants adopted the written statement of the 2nd defendant. When the 6th defendant came on record, she assumed a different attitude and wanted to sail with the plaintiff.
5. The trial Court, on the findings that the properties in suit were not the self-acquisitions of the defendant but belonged to the joint family and that, that division evidenced by Ex. C-1 was inadmissible for want of stamp and registration, entered judgment for the plaintiff.
6. The trial Judge, however, relegated the 6th defendant to a separate suit inasmuch as her defence was in conflict with the position taken up by the 4th defendant. The suit against defendants 7 to 13 wag dismissed and that is not called in question before us.
7. Dissatisfied with the decree, the 1st defendant has come up in appeal. Pending the appeal, he died leaving a will bequeathing his properties to his widow with a limited interest who has come on record as the 2nd ap
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
