Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI, J.
Mani @ Arumugam & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Chandran - Respondent
S.A.No.618 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.15284 of 2017
Decided On : 01-03-2024
EVIDENCE - Partition of Joint Family Property - Sections 145, 157 of the Indian Evidence Act; Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code - The court discussed the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and the implications of Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. It emphasized that contradictions in witness statements must be addressed by allowing the witness an opportunity to explain them. The court found that the First Appellate Court erred in admitting evidence without this opportunity, which influenced its decision to restore the Trial Court's ruling that the properties were not joint family properties. The court clarified that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming joint family property, and mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought partition of a 7/36 share in properties claimed to be joint family properties, alleging that they were purchased from joint earnings. The defendants, including the plaintiff's father, contended that the properties were self-acquired and denied any joint family claim. The Trial Court ruled partly in favor of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, leading to the Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the First Appellate Court improperly admitted additional evidence without allowing the 3rd defendant an opportunity to explain contradictions in his statements. It ruled that the properties were not joint family properties as claimed by the plaintiff, restoring the Trial Court's original judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court was correct in finding the properties blended as joint family properties without evidence of ancestral property? 2. Whether the admission of additional evidence was proper without allowing the appellants to disprove it? 3. Whether the decree for partition was justified given the circumstances? 4. Whether the First Appellate Court overlooked the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admission of evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proving joint family property lies with the claimant, and mere assertions without evidence are insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of allowing a witness the opportunity to explain contradictions before admitting their statements as evidence. The court also clarified that the properties in question were self-acquired and not joint family properties.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Balaji, J.
[PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2017 passed in A.S.No.88 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and the decree dated 15.07.2016 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, by allowing the second appeal].
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2017 in A.S.No.88 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2016 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 on the file the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.
2. The defendants in the suit for partition are the appellants herein.
3. The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 7/36 share in the suit properties, namely, Item Nos.1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 and that they were members of a Hindu Joint Family. Accordingly to the plaintiff, both the above said Items of the properties were joint family properties and undivided. Though both the Items were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, father, in the year 1973 (Item – 1) and between 1978 and 1981 (Item – 2), the definite case of the plaintiff was that the properties have been purchased out of the joint earnings of the plaintiff and the defendants and that the plaintiff was also cultivating the properties on lease for past five to six years. Further, the ancestral house in Siruvallur Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode, was sold on 11.09.1989 for a sum of Rs.6,000/- and that the sale consideration was utilized for construction of houses in the said two items of the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the properties were thrown into common stock and the 1st defendant also never claimed or asserted any independent or separate right over the same.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that his father had executed four Gift Deeds on 28.08.2008, gifting specific portions in Item No.2 of the suit properties to the defendants 2 to 5, thereby leaving out the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the settlement deeds were void as the 1st defendant had no exclusive right or title over the same. However, the plaintiff did not seek for any declaration, but merely chose to seek for relief of partition.
6. The 1st defendant, father, filed a written statement denying the claims of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant stated that he was running a mutton shop and his business was flourishing and yielding considerable income and only out of that separate income of the 1st defendant, the properties, namely, Items Nos.1 and 2 were purchased. The 1st defendant has denied any contribution from the other defendants or the plaintiff. As the plaintiff had no right over the suit properties, he could not question the action of the 1st defendant in settling the properties in favour of the defendants 2 to 5, his other children.
7. The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement reiterating the averments and allegations made by the 1st defendant in his written statement. An additional written statement was filed by the defendants 2, 4 and 5, adopting the written statement filed by 1st defendant, the father. The 6th defendant also adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant and the additional written statement filed by the defendants 2, 4 and 5.
8. The Trial Court found that the suit properties were not joint family properties as alleged by the plaintiff, but were only self acquired properties of the 1st defendant and therefore, partly decreed the suit granting a 1/6th share to the plaintiff, in the available items of the properties, after execution of Ex.A2 to A5, the settlement deeds.
9. The plaintiff preferred an Appeal against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Before the Fi
AI
The court established that the burden of proof for joint family property lies with the claimant, and the admission of evidence must follow due process, allowing parties the opportunity to address con....
Properties in female Hindu's name post-Hindu Succession Act presumed self-acquired; plaintiffs bear heavy burden to prove joint family funds usage.
The presumption of joint family property does not apply if the property is proven to be self-acquired; the burden of proof lies on the claimant of joint family property.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
The existence of a registered partnership deed governs the relationship between parties, rendering claims for partition of joint family properties unmaintainable when no evidence of joint family owne....
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the properties were joint family properties or acquired from joint family funds, and the registered partnership deed governed the disputes requiring arbitration.
(1) Partition – Once disruption of joint family status takes place, coparceners cease to hold property as joint tenants but they hold as tenants-in-common.(2) Production of additional evidence – It i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving joint family properties lies with the party making the claim, and failure to challenge the evidence or provide evidence ....
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.....
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
