Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
Smt. Chanan Rani - Appellant
Versus
Sardar Nanak Singh and others - Respondents
Civil First Appeal No.98 of 1982
Decided On : 11-02-2013
HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY - PROPERTY - ACQUISITION - PRESUMPTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY - INSURANCE POLICY - NOMINEE - RIGHT TO RECEIVE AMOUNT - SUCCESSION - MOVABLE PROPERTIES - INJUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants seeking partition and her 1/3rd share in the immovable properties belonging to the HUF including the house bearing No.1182 situated at Natanion Ki Gali, Chora Rasta, Jaipur, and sought permanent injunction in respect of the movable properties described in the Schedules K & Kh annexed to the plaint. The respondents-defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint, and contending interalia that the defendant No.1 had received only Rs. 650/- by way of compensation from the ancestral properties at Pakistan, and that the house bearing No.1182 was purchased by the defendant No.1 not from the said funds of HUF but from his own income, and therefore the said property was the self acquired property of the defendant No.1.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the property bearing House No.1182 described in para 3 of the plaint is the property of HUF of respondent No.1 and that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to get her share in the same as prayed for in the plaint. The remaining part of the decree is confirmed.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant-plaintiff had proved that the house bearing No.1182, at Jaipur was purchased by the respondent No.1 with the aid and assistance of the nucleus of the HUF, and therefore she had her share in the same as claimed by her? 2. Whether the respondent No.1 had proved that the said house at Jaipur was his self acquired property and not the HUF property? 3. Whether the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to the injunction in respect of the movable properties left by her deceased husband Niranjan Singh?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The law is well settled that property acquired by a karta or a coparcener with the aid or assistance of joint family assets is impressed with the character of joint family property. 2. The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property in the first instance is upon the person who claims it as coparcenary property. 3. If the possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. 4. The onus then shifts on to the person who claims the property as self-acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate. 5. A mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. 6. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. 7. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them.
Final Decision: The appeal is partly allowed by modifying the judgment and decree to the extent that the property bearing House No.1182 described in para 3 of the plaint is declared to be the property of HUF of respondent No.1 and that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to get her share in the same as prayed for in the plaint. The remaining part of the decree is confirmed. The cross-objections are dismissed.
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
The appellant-plaintiff has preferred the appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment & decree dated 26.07.1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Court No.7 (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.86/76 [64/80], so far as the findings recorded by the trial court relating to the issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 are concerned. The respondents-defendants have filed their cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code in the appeal challenging the said decree, so far as the findings relating to the issue Nos.3, 5 & 7 are concerned.
2. The appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking partition and her ?th share in the immovable properties belonging to the HUF including the house bearing No.1182 situated at Natanion Ki Gali, Chora Rasta, Jaipur, and sought permanent injunction in respect of the movable properties described in the Schedules K & Kh annexed to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint interalia that Late Shri Niranjan Singh, husband of the appellant-plaintiff, was the eldest son of the defendant No.1 Sardar Nanak Singh. The said Niranjan Singh expired on 18.02.1976 at Jaipur. According to the plaintiff, before the partition i.e. 1947, the whole family of the defendants including Shri Niranjan Singh were staying at Multan (Pakistan), where they had some properties belonging to the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) of which the defendant No.1 was the karta. After the partition, the whole family came to India leaving their properties in Pakistan, for which the defendant No.1 was given the compensation to the tune of about Rs. 35,000/- under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act 1950. The defendant No.1 thereafter purchased the residential house bearing No.1182 at the Natanion Ki Gali, Jaipur and other properties from the said amount of compensation received by him as the karta of HUF. It was further case of the plaintiff that initially the said house No.1182 was occupied by the tenants, and therefore the family of defendant No.1 was staying in a rented premises, and after sometime part of the said house having been vacated, the plaintiff and her husband Niranjan Singh had started staying over there. Thereafter, the remaining part having been vacated by the tenants, the defendants had also come to stay in the said house. It was also case of the plaintiff that during the said period, her husband Niranjan Singh was working in the Sachivalaya, Jaipur and had his own independent income. On the death of her husband Niranjan Singh on 18.02.1976, the defendants started misbehaving with the plaintiff and tried to take possession of the movable properties purchased by the plaintiff and her husband from their own income. The defendant No.1 also refused to part with the amount of insurance policy, in which he was mentioned as nominee. According to the plaintiff, the said house bearing No.1182 and other immovable properties having been purchased from the nucleus of the HUF, the plaintiff had ?th share in the said properties. Hence the said suit, claiming her share in the immovable properties, and seeking the permanent injunction in respect of the movable properties was filed.
3. The respondents-defendants had resisted the said suit by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint, and contending interalia that the defendant No.1 had received only Rs. 650/- by way of compensation from the ancestral properties at Pakistan, and that the house bearing No.1182 was purchased by the defendant No.1 not from the said funds of HUF but from his own income, and therefore the said property was the self acquired property of the defendant No.1. The defendants had also denied the allegations levelled against them with regard to the movable properties and the insurance policies as alleged in the plaint. The trial court from the pleadings of the parties framed following se
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
