Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Prem Sagar – Appellant
Versus
Chaman Lal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)
Plaintiff is in second appeal.
2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking partition by metes and bonds and separation of his 1/12th share in the properties claiming the same to be coparcenary and HUF properties.
3. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it will be apt to peruse the pedigree table demonstrating relationship between the parties:-
4. Durga Dass died in the year 1933. He had four sons, namely Chaman Lal, Charanji Lal, Ami Chand @ Amin Chand, Bhaur Chand and two daughters, namely Vidya Devi and Sita Devi. Ami Chand died in the year 1979. Janak Raj s/o Charanji Lal died in the year 1969. Plaintiff is son of Charanji Lal. He claims that properties at Sr. No.1 to 4 in schedule 'B' appended to the plaint, are coparcenary and joint hindu family properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 23. They were inherited by the parties to the lis from Durga Dass. Properties mentioned in schedule 'C' attached to the plaint were purchased by joint hindu family constituted by sons, grand sons and great grand sons of Durga Dass with joint hindu family funds. Further case of the plaintiff is that the sons, grand sons and great grand sons of Durga Dass started a coop
A party claiming joint ownership of property must establish the existence of a joint family and the pool of funds used for property acquisition.
The court affirmed the joint family status and the trial court's ruling on partition, rejecting claims of prior oral partition due to insufficient evidence.
The court clarified that properties must be inherited or acquired from a joint family nucleus to be classified as ancestral under Hindu law, rejecting claims based solely on joint acquisition.
The burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition when joint family property is claimed, as evidenced in the judgment affirming the trial court's findings on property character.
A partition among heirs was established, and the properties in question were determined to be self-acquired, nullifying the plaintiffs' claims of joint family property.
The court affirmed that partition of family properties had occurred prior to 1942, establishing individual ownership rights over properties acquired post-partition, thereby negating claims of joint f....
Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act do not apply retroactively to previously partitioned properties, confirming the validity of prior partitions.
Daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, regardless of prior claims of partition.
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
