Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
Vadivelan & Others - Appellant
Versus
Gandhi & Another - Respondent
S.A. No. 573 of 2017
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Joint Family Property - Partition - Indian Stamp Act - Indian Evidence Act - Hindu Law - [FACT OF THE CASE] The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of ancestral properties. The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court held that the suit properties were the separate properties of the 1st defendant and dismissed the suit. The Second Appeal was filed against this decision. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found that the properties purchased by the 1st defendant were joint family properties and that the burden of proof lay on the defendant to prove otherwise. The Court held that the judgment and decree in the suit for specific performance against the 1st defendant were not binding on the plaintiffs. [ISSUES] Whether the suit properties were joint family properties or the separate properties of the 1st defendant. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court applied the principles of Hindu Law and held that when the senior member of a joint family acquires property in his name, there is a presumption that the property is joint family property unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming the property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds. [FINAL DECISION] The Second Appeal was allowed, and the suit for partition was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 made in AS.No.29/2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Erode District at Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2009 made in OS.No.252/2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani.)
(1) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit in OS.No.252/2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.
(2) The plaintiffs filed the suit in OS.No.252/2003 before the Sub Court, Bhavani, for partition of 3/4th share in all the suit properties. The suit properties are agricultural lands described as six different portions with reference to various extents and specific boundaries, measuring 2.17.0 Hectares out of the total extent of 4.36.5 Hectares in RS.No.107 of Patlur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. The suit properties also include a well apart from a small house in the third item of the suit properties.
(3) The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. Plaintiffs are the two sons and daughter of the 1st defendant. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the 1st defendant born through his first wife by name Jeeva and the 3rd plaintiff is the minor son of the 1st defendant born through the 3rd wife of the 1st defendant, by name Vijaya. The 2nd defendant is the brother's wife of the 1st defendant.
(4) The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the ancestral properties of the 1st defendant and his three brothers were partitioned under a registered Partition Deed dated 10.09.1975. An extent of 3.66 acres in S.No.555 and another extent of 1.23 acres in S.No.560 with a well and motor pumpset in Volakkadam Village was allotted to the 1st defendant. It is stated that the 1st defendant, for the purpose of purchasing other properties and for repaying the loan obtained by him from the Cooperative Bank, the properties allotted to the 1st defendant in the family partition was sold in favour of one Palanisamy under two Sale Deeds in the year 1985. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the sale consideration obtained by the 1st defendant was more than the actual amount received by him under the documents and therefore, one of the documents was impounded for under valuation and an enquiry under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act is still pending. It is also stated that the 1st defendant's brother was also allotted undivided 5.40 acres and were enjoyed in common with reference to the undivided share of the respective parties. The 1st defendant after selling the ancestral properties which were allotted to him in the previous partition under two different documents and with the surplus money he had from the sale of the ancestral properties, purchased the properties allotted to his brother by two different Sale Deeds dated 30.09.1986 and 17.09.1987 respectively. Since the properties are not divided by metes and bounds, the 1st defendant entered into a partition with his junior paternal uncle by name Chinnusamy and the suit properties were allotted to the 1st defendant in the Partition Deed dated 23.01.1990. Since the suit properties were acquired by the 1st defendant by selling the ancestral properties for the benefits of plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, it is stated that the suit properties are joint family properties. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 along with the 1st defendant, executed a Mortgage Deed for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and constructed a house out of the amount. Stating that the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are in joint enjoyment and that the 1st defendant was addicted to drinking and involved in gambling and other immoral activities including development of affairs with several women and that the 1st defendant refused to agree for an amicable partition giving 3/4th share in the suit properties, the suit for partition of 3/4th share is filed.
(5) The 1st defendant did not file any written statement and remain
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
In a partition suit, the burden of proving that property standing in an individual's name is joint family property lies upon the party asserting it, requiring proof of a sufficient ancestral nucleus.....
The absence of evidence proving the joint family status of properties allows a presumption that they are individual assets; thus, plaintiffs' claim for partition is dismissed.
The judicial presumption of joint ownership requires proof of a family nucleus, and mere existence of a joint family does not automatically classify all properties as joint.
The burden of proof is on the party asserting that the property is joint family property, and unless the foundational facts are established, the property will be deemed to be the self-acquired proper....
Ancestral properties must be proven to remain joint family properties post-partition; otherwise, they are deemed separate and not subject to partition claims.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
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
