HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J
Dhapali – Appellant
Versus
B O R Ajmer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.
1.This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘Board of Revenue’) whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners/appellants/defendants (for brevity, ‘defendants’), the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2001 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar, Camp Jhunjhunu (for brevity, ‘RAA’) allowing the appeal no.103/2000 preferred by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, ‘plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jhunjhunu (for brevity, ‘trial Court’) dismissing her suit for declaration and partition, has been affirmed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and partition stating that the subject property was the ancestral property of the parties. It was averred that her grandfather Shri Dularam had three sons namely S/Shri Bhura Ram, Lichmanram and Shoynarayan. Shri Dularam had already left the joint hindu family and the subject property continued to be in the joint khatedari of S/Shri Lichmanram and Shoynarayan after the
Co-sharers in ancestral property retain their rights despite lack of possession; adverse possession cannot extinguish these rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving joint ownership of ancestral property lies with the claimant, and such burden cannot be discharged solely by oral eviden....
A clerical error in a decree's operative portion does not invalidate a judgment if substantive issues are resolved, and prior partition must be proven by the defendants.
Point of law : There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family....
plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and it is to be rejected out rightly. Hence, in absence of such evidence, it is to be presumed that the plaintiff-Appellant has one h....
Co-tenancy claims require demonstration of ancestral ties and continuity; mere presumption of joint heritage is insufficient for property claims.
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
A co-sharer’s right to ancestral property is inherent and cannot be extinguished by absence from the parental home.
The court affirmed that the suit property was separate property inherited by the father, not ancestral, allowing its legal sale to the respondent.
The presumption of joint family property necessitates proof of individual ownership; without such proof, a child has a right to claim share in ancestral property.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.