Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Sitaram Chauhan, son of Late Munilal Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Moteshwari Devi, wife of Late Munilal Chauhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.05.2023 and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner – XXI, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.56 of 2018 whereby the appeal has been dismissed, affirming the judgment dated 25.08.2017 and decree dated 01.09.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division – X, Ranchi in Partition Suit No.42 of 2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was filed for partition claiming one-seventh portion of the suit land in which a house is also constructed, the details of which were given in Schedule A to the plaint, and for appointment of survey knowing pleader commission for preparation of separate takhta for the plaintiff with cost.
4. He submitted that the suit property was purchased by late Munilal Chouhan in the year 1991, in the name of the mother of the plaintiff, and as per the plaint, it was a Benami property and therefore, after death of Munilal Chouhan, the property was to be partitioned. He submitted that the specific case of
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish a property as benami, which was not satisfied in this case.
The burden of proof in claiming a property as a benami lies on the person alleging it, and presumption favors the name holder unless proven otherwise.
In partition suits concerning benami transactions, the burden of proving such claims lies with the defendants; failure to do so results in equal distribution of shares among legal heirs.
A property held jointly by spouses is presumed to have equal ownership unless evidence of unequal contribution is established, prohibiting claims under benami transactions without legal backing.
Joint ownership claims persist until partition; rights in a partition suit are not bound by limitation, and the burden to prove legal necessity for property transfer lies with the transferee.
The conditions for claiming benefits under Section 4 of the Partition Act require a dwelling house to be in existence at the time of transfer, which the appellant failed to establish.
The presumption of joint family property exists unless the self-acquiring party proves acquisition from separate funds, reaffirming the shifting burden of proof.
Purchasers cannot claim more than what their transferor legally owns; a property can only be sold according to rightful ownership, ensuring correct partition among heirs.
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
