Back
2005 Supreme(UK) 194
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
IRSHAD HUSSAIN, B. S. VERMA
KHYALI RAM SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
BHOLA dutt SHARMA - Respondents
First Appeal 270 Of 2001
Decided On : JUNE 6, 2005
B.C.PANDEY, B.D.Pandey, Manbir Singh, NARAYAN DUTT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove joint family ownership of disputed property and business ventures, as well as the principles of self-acquired property and blending of separate property into joint family property.
Headnote:
Joint Family - Property Dispute - [Hindu Joint Family, Property Acquisition, Business Ownership] - [Hindu Law, Property Law] - The court discussed the existence of a Hindu Joint Family, the acquisition of property, and the ownership of business ventures by the parties. It emphasized the legal principles related to joint family property, self-acquired property, and the blending of separate property into joint family property. The court's decision was influenced by the failure to prove joint family ownership of the disputed property and business ventures.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts, claiming a share in a property and business ventures allegedly owned by the joint family. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the parties were not members of a Hindu Joint Family and that the property in question was not joint family property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a Hindu Joint Family and the joint ownership of the disputed property and business ventures. It held that the property was self-acquired by the defendant and not liable for partition. The plaintiff was also not entitled to claim a share in the compensation or sale proceeds obtained by the defendant.
Issues: The main issues were the existence of a Hindu Joint Family, the ownership of the disputed property and business ventures, and the entitlement to partition and rendition of accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure to prove joint family ownership of the property and business ventures, as well as the principles of self-acquired property and blending of separate property into joint family property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment and decree. The plaintiff's claim for partition and rendition of accounts was rejected, and the defendant's ownership of the property and business ventures was upheld.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 14-5-1998 passed by the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), almora in original suit No. 74/1997. Appellant-plaintiffs suit for partition and for rendition of accounts was dismissed.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in plot serial No. 99/95 popularly known as 'dan Singh Estate' at ranikhet Cantonment, District Almora and for rendition of the ascounts in relation to compensation and sale proceeds of his part of the plot realized by defendant No. 1 so as to pay 1/3rd share to him.
( 3 ) PLAINTIFF and the defendants are real brothers and their ancestral property is situate in village Kharak, District Almora. Their father died in the early nineteen forties. Plaintiff alleged that at that time defendant no. 1 was major and on the death of the father he became 'karta' of the Hindu undivided Family. In the year 1948 plaintiff went to Delhi and in 1949 started a canteen in the office of Deputy Auditor General, 3-Man-singh Road, New Delhi. Plaintiff further pleaded that he repaid all the debts of the huf and supported the defendants who were residing in ancestral village; that the defendant No. 2 was looking after the agricultural work in village as agreed between the three brothers and plaintiff and defendant no. 1 were engaged in business in Delhi; that the defendant No. 1 had no independent business or profession or occupation till 1971; that in the year 1954 he started qutub Restaurant and earned handsome profits from it and that the defendant No. 1 used to assist him in running the said restaurant but all the profits earned remained with the defendant No. 1 and in joint bank accounts. 3a. It was further alleged that in the year 1962 the defendant No. 1 purchased a plot of land in auction at Ranikhet, popularly known as 'dan Singh Estate' and its price of Rs. 26,000/- was paid by defendant No. 1 from the joint funds of the family. The defendant No. 1 also purchased some agricultural land in the village, mutation of which was made in the names of all the three brothers. Due to some litigation the names of all the three brothers were however not entered against plot of land purchased at Ranikhet. In June, 1987 plaintiff asked the defendant no. l to give him possession of the 1/3rd share and to effect the partition of the joint property but the defendant No. 1 refused to do so and illegally claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the property at Ranikhet. The defendant No. 1 had sold part of the said 'dan Singh Estate' at Ranikhet whereas some part of it was damaged in fire. The defendant No. l received compensation which along with the sale proceeds legally belong to the joint family.
( 4 ) PLAINTIFF further alleged that the Qutub restaurant at Delhi started in 1954, the I. T. D. C. Canteen started in 1955, the Taj restaurant started in 1957 and the I. N. A. Canteen started in 1970 were all joint ventures run by him and the defendant No. 1 for the joint family; that the defendant No. 1 also received compensation of the land acquired by Delhi Administration at village hauz Rani, Delhi; that the plaintiff sent no tice for partition on 14-10-1987 but the. defendant No. 1 refused for the same vide his reply dated 19-10-1987 and that since the agricultural land is situate in village Kharak and Mason within the jurisdiction of the revenue Court, the suit for partition of property situate at Ranikhet and for rendition of the accounts is, therefore, instituted against the defendants.
( 5 ) THE defendants filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 2, supported the stand taken by the elder brother, the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that there never had been Hindu Undivided Family of the plaintiff and the defendants; that all the brothers were minors at the time of the death of their father, who had left only about 60 nalis of un-irrigated land in village Kharak; that in the year 19
