Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Chhutta – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.K. Pandey, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aman Srivastava, learned Counsel for private respondents and Mr. Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to total 146 plots area 55.84 acres situated in Village Bansi, Pargana Bansi, District Lalitpur (Jhansi) as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition. Respondent no.1-B/ Janki, respondent no.2/ Bhaiya Lal, respondent no.3/ Hardas filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming co-tenancy right along with defendant nos. 3 to 29 on the ground that Fattu and Nanha were common ancestors of the parties and land in suit is coming down from time of ancestors which was acquired out of the nucleaus of the Joint Hindu Family Fund and parties have been in possession over the same. Defendant nos. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,14 & 29 jointly filed written statement denying the plaintiff's claim. It was also mentioned in the writte
Co-tenancy claims require demonstration of ancestral ties and continuity; mere presumption of joint heritage is insufficient for property claims.
The burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish joint ownership of property, which requires evidence of unbroken continuity of joint possession throughout generations, as mere assertions are ....
Point of law : There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family....
The presumption of joint family property does not arise solely from the existence of a joint family; the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that property was acquired from joint family....
The presumption of joint family status persists until proven otherwise, with the burden of proof on the party asserting separation.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting property as Joint Hindu Family property, and mere assertions without evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption of joint ownership.
The presumption of joint family status persists until proven otherwise, with the burden of proof on the party asserting separation, supported by historical documentation.
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
