Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Nanilal Das - Appellant
Versus
Nutbehari Das & Ors. - Respondent
Appeals from Original Decrees Nos. 270 and 271 or 1930
Decided On : 17-04-1934
Joint Family - Partition - Sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 - The court discussed the concept of joint Hindu family under the Dayabhaga system, focusing on the requirement of a nucleus of ancestral property for the formation of a joint family in estate. The court analyzed the presumption of jointness in property acquired during a state of jointness, considering the strength of the presumption based on the circumstances of each case. The court also examined the doctrine of blending of separate acquisitions with joint family estate, concluding that the blending of income from two contract businesses created joint family property. The court further addressed the doctrine of double share for acquisitions made with the aid of joint funds, finding it inapplicable in the case of blended income. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of legal provisions related to joint family property, presumption of jointness, blending of acquisitions, and the doctrine of double share.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a nephew, filed a suit for partition and accounts against his uncle and two cousins, claiming a one-sixth share in the properties acquired by his father and uncle while living in commensality. The defendant, the uncle, argued that the properties were his self-acquired property and that there was no joint Hindu family. The plaintiff and his brothers argued that the properties were acquired with joint funds and efforts, and that the defendant was the karta of the joint family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no nucleus of ancestral property at the time the contract business was started. However, the court found that the defendant and his brother had some joint estate, although very small. The court concluded that the defendant had blended his separate acquisitions with joint property, including the grocer's shop. The court also found that the defendant's earnings from the contract business were blended with the earnings of his nephew, creating joint family property. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for partition of the contract business started by the nephew, as the defendant had no interest in it. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the Mudiali house, finding it to be the defendant's self-acquired property. The court held that the doctrine of double share was not applicable in the case of blended income.
Issues: The main issues in the case were whether the defendant and his brother formed a joint Hindu family, whether the contract business was a joint property, and whether the other properties in suit were acquired out of any joint fund and were joint properties of the brothers. The court also had to determine the shares of the parties in the joint properties and whether the defendant was liable to render accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of joint Hindu family under the Dayabhaga system, the presumption of jointness in property acquired during a state of jointness, the doctrine of blending of separate acquisitions with joint family estate, and the doctrine of double share for acquisitions made with the aid of joint funds. The court held that the blending of income from two contract businesses created joint family property, and that the doctrine of double share was not applicable in the case of blended income.
Final Decision: The court decreed partition of all the properties mentioned in schedule "ka" except the three bighas of gifted land in favor of Panchanan and the Mudiali house. The court also decreed partition of the land purchased by Manmatha from Nafar Das. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim regarding the two contract businesses, but decreed the plaintiff's claim to the grocer's shop and the movables mentioned in schedule "kha". The court appointed a Commissioner to carry into effect the preliminary decree for partition. The court dismissed the claim for accounts and the claim for the money-lending business.
JUDGMENT
Mitter, J. - I cannot say that I have found the case free from difficulty or that my mind has not been in suspense during a considerable part of the argument, but after giving the case the most careful consideration I have arrived at a conclusion, satisfactory at least to my own mind. These are two appeals by the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and arise in a suit for partition and accounts. The properties sought to be partitioned are mentioned in three schedules to the plaint. In the " ka " schedule the immovable properties were described; in the " kha " schedule mention was made of the movable properties and the " ga " schedule related to the money-lending business. The Plaintiff sought for a declaration that he is entitled to a one-sixth share in the scheduled properties, that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have one sixth share each and Defendant No. 1 has a half-share. In the schedule of immovable properties there are 23 items. On the 26th of March, 1928, the Plaintiff applied for an amendment of the plaint and three more properties were directed to be added to the " ka " schedule properties as also to the " kha " schedule and also to " ga " schedule some more properties were added. The Plaintiff applied for another amendment on the 9th of July, 1930, and one other property was added to the " kha " schedule lands. The Subordinate Judge of 24 Perganas who tried the suit held that Plaintiff was entitled to a partition of the homestead, 3 bighas in area, which he found to belong jointly to Plaintiff and the three Defendants in suit. But with regard to the house upon it, the Subordinate Judge held that it belongs to Defendant No. 1 as his self-acquired property and as a house cannot be divided into metes and bounds, the valuation of the said property be determined and that the Defendant No. 1 is to pay half the amount of that valuation retaining the whole for himself and half the valuation paid by Defendant No. 1 is to be divided into equal shares amongst the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. But he has dismissed Plaintiff's claim with regard to the rest of the properties.
2. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship between the parties.
3. The principal contestant to the appeals is Defendant No. 1, Nutbehary Das, the uncle of the Appellants, who started life as a pankhapuller and, starting from nothing, by his own exertions has risen to a position of great affluence.
4. It appears from the said genealogical tree that Iswar died in the year 1302, leaving behind him his widow Chintamoni, two sons, Haridas and Nutbehary, Defendant No. 1 and two daughters, Giribala and Rajabala; that Haridas died on the 5th March, 1926, leaving behind him Manmatha, Defendant No. 2, Nani, the Plaintiff and Nagen, Defendant No. 3. Raimani is the mother of Chintamoni and mother-in-law of Iswar and she died in 1815, B. S. Giribala was married to Nafar Patra and Rajabala was married to Haricharan Das.
5. The case stated in the plaint is that Haridas Das, the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, was the elder brother of Defendant No. 1, that the said two brothers while living in commensality, jointly as members of a joint Hindu family, acquired, numerous properties with their joint labour, care and exertions, and while they were owning and possessing the same jointly, the Plaintiff's father died on the 21st Falgoon, 1332, B. S., corresponding to the 5th March, 1926; that the Plaintiff's father used to do karbar (trade) while the Defendant No. 1 used to do the work of a rivetman and contractor; that both the brothers purchased lands both at Fatehpur and at other neighbouring places, with their joint funds, created many yucca structures, excavated many tanks and laid out many gardens and orchards on those lands as also on other lands belonging to them--also with their joint funds; that they also constructed sheds and coolie ghurs with corrugated iron, purchased pucca buildings with the lands thereunder and on letting
gpt-4
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 burden of proof in establishing a benami transaction lies with the claimant, and the existence of a joint family nucleus and joint family properties must be proven with cogent evidence.
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.
There would be presumption of jointness in a family governed by Hindu law.
The burden of proof in establishing joint family property and self-acquired property is on the party asserting the same. Once the existence of joint family nucleus is proven, the burden shifts to the....
Properties cannot be presumed joint family properties unless proven to derive from sufficient income or surplus of ancestral properties.
A party claiming joint ownership of property must establish the existence of a joint family and the pool of funds used for property acquisition.
The court clarified that properties must be inherited or acquired from a joint family nucleus to be classified as ancestral under Hindu law, rejecting claims based solely on joint acquisition.
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
