Back
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ranjeeta Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Shekhar Prasad Keshari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. This is defendants’ second appeal against the judgment of affirmance.
2. Parties will be referred to by their original placement in the suit and will include their heirs and legal representatives substituted at different stages.
3. The plaintiff filed suit for partition of the suit properties as detailed in Schedule A of the plaint claiming 1/3rd share with a further prayer to declare registered deed of gift no. 546 dated 4th January, 1999 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 to be void and in-operative.
4. Plaintiff is the son, who filed the suit against his father Mahabir Prasad Keshri (defendant no. 2), his son Ranjit Kumar Keshri (defendant no. 3) and Smt. Ranjeeta Kumari (D1 w/o D2) for partition.
5. The main contention of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the suit property was joint family property which was acquired by his grandfather Mangal Sao during his life time in 1937 jointly in the name of Mahabir Prasad Keshri (defendant no. 2) and his other four brothers.
6. The suit properties fell in the share of Mahabir Prasad Keshri (D2) which was transferred by gift to Defendant no. 1 against which the present c
The court affirmed that property held in joint family is not subject to unilateral gift by a member, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition.
Joint family properties are established through contributions from family income, and the validity of a gift deed in such cases necessitates consent from all joint owners.
A Kartha of a Hindu joint family cannot gift joint family property without the consent of other coparceners, as such gifts are void.
A claim for partition must be substantiated by evidence of ancestral property status or blending with joint family property, which was not proven in this case.
A Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family cannot gift joint family property without the consent of other coparceners, rendering such a Gift Deed invalid.
The courts upheld that prior partition negated the existence of a joint family, establishing the properties in question as self-acquired rather than ancestral.
A claimant must prove the ancestral nature of properties to claim entitlement under the amended Hindu Succession Act; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The plaintiff must prove joint family property status to succeed in partition claims; mere assertion is insufficient. The burden of proof emphasizes the need for substantial evidence.
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
