Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
F. M. REIS & K. L. WADANE, JJ.
SHRI RAMNATH NARAYAN PAI- Appellant
Versus
SHRI EKNATH NARAYAN PAI - Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2010
Decided on : 16-09-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. N. Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Mr Deep Shirodkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri U.R. Timble, Advocate for the respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of joint family property under Hindu Law, the burden of proof on the party alleging self-acquisition, and the application of the Hindu Succession Act 2005 to determine coparcener rights.
Headnote:
HUF - Property Dispute - Hindu Succession Act 2005 - Chalta Nos.46, 47, 48 and 56 of P.T. Sheet No. 91 - The court found that the suit property was joint family property purchased from the nucleus of HUF. The defendant failed to prove that the suit property was self-acquired. The court held that the coparceners were entitled to equal shares in the joint family property.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership and partition of joint family property. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was joint family property purchased through family funds and sought partition and separate possession. The defendants contested, claiming that the suit property was self-acquired by the defendant no.1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property was joint family property purchased from the nucleus of HUF. The defendant failed to prove that the suit property was self-acquired. The court held that the coparceners were entitled to equal shares in the joint family property.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs and the defendant no.3 to 9 were entitled to partition and separate possession, and whether the defendant no.1 proved that the suit property was self-acquired.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of Hindu Law and the Hindu Succession Act 2005 to determine the status of the suit property as joint family property. It emphasized the presumption of joint family property and the burden of proof on the party alleging self-acquisition. The court also considered the evidence of partnership and settlement agreements to establish the joint family nature of the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the coparceners were entitled to equal shares in the joint family property.
K. L. Wadane, J.
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original defendant nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco, in Special Civil Suit No. 20/2005/A dated 26.07.2010 by which the learned Judge has decreed the suit. Hence, the appeal.
2. The description of the suit property is mentioned in para 15-B and business mentioned in para 15-C of the plaint are the suit property and herein after referred to as “the suit property”.
3. The parties are referred to their original status.
4. The claim of the plaintiffs as can be seen from the pleadings is that one Narayan Pai having four sons and seven daughters out of which one son namely Srinath died. The plaintiff nos. 1, 3 and defendant no.1 are the sons of Narayan and plaintiff no.2 is wife of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no.4 is the wife of plaintiff no.3. The defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1. Defendant nos. 3 to 9 are daughters of deceased Narayan Pai.
5. The defendant nos. 10 and 11 are the purchasers of the one of the property sold by the defendant no.1. Mr. Narayan Pai died in the year 1974 and his wife Saraswati died in the year 1993.
6. The parents of the plaintiffs and defendants were originally hailing from Honnavar from Karnataka State. The father of the plaintiffs and defendants namely Narayan Pai came down to Goa and settled during the Portuguese regime prior to the liberation of Goa. All the children were born and brought up in Goa.
7. During the Portuguese regime, Narayan Pai purchased immovable properties i.e. surveyed under chalta Nos.46, 47, 48 and 56 of P.T. Sheet No. 91 in the name of the defendant no.1. The suit property was originally belonged to the Communidade of Mormugao and in possession and enjoyment of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants since 1955. During the land survey, when the notice was issued by the survey authorities in the name of the father of the plaintiffs, at that time the father had expired in the month of ( August 1975). After the death, the mother was attended by the defendant no.1 as other sons were minors and presently the name of the defendant no.1 is recorded in the entire suit property.
8. During the life lime of Narayan Pai, he set up a family business i.e. grocery shop however it was closed after liberation of Goa. Thereafter, Narayan set up another business at Mundvel under the name and style as M/s Canara Timbers Depot where all types of mangalore tiles were available and such business was flourished. Besides the above business, the family has big house which was rented to the different persons at different point of time. The above referred business and the income from the rented house was looked after by Narayan and after his death all the properties and business was managed by the sons of Narayan. However, the funds were exclusively handled by the defendant no.1 who was the elder brother. After the death of the father, all the brothers were jointly took another plot at Vasco in the year 1976 or thereabout and the old business under name and style M/s Canara Timber was shifted to Vaddem and it was started in the name of the mother i.e. M/s Saraswati Timber and Tiles Depot and the entire business from Mundvel was shifted to Vaddem. The business was looked by all four brothers and it was sometime called as partnership business but basically it was a family business.
9. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that they have family property at Honnavar allotted on the rental basis of Rs.3000/-per month.
10. From the family funds, the family members had purchased 9000 square metres plot at Old Goa through defendant no.1 and the title document is in possession of the defendant no.1. Likewise, another plot at Dabolim was purchased from the funds of joint family. In the year 1990 another flat was acquired at Margao and it was purchased from the fami
