SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(MP) 977

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. B. DIXIT, CHANDRESH BHUSHAN
PURSHOTTAM - Appellant
Versus
BHAGWAT SHARAN - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL 141 Of 1995
Decided On : 10/07/2002

Advocates Appeared:
A.M.Naik, B.K.AGARWAL, C.R.ROMAN, M.B.MANGAL, R.A.Roman, R.D.AGRAWAL, R.D.Jain

The burden of proof for establishing the existence of a joint Hindu family and joint family property rests on the plaintiff.

Headnote:

Joint Hindu Family Property - Property Dispute - [Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6] - The court discussed the joint Hindu family property and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish the existence of a joint Hindu family. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the property in dispute was not joint family property. The doctrine of election was also discussed, and the court held that it was not applicable in the present case.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal arose from a judgment granting a decree for partition of certain immovable property consisting of six houses and agricultural lands in favor of the respondent. The appellants disputed the claim, arguing that the property was not joint family property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the property in dispute was not joint family property and set aside the decree for partition passed by the trial court, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent.

Issues: The principal issue was whether the appellants and respondents constituted a Joint Hindu Family and if the property in dispute was joint family property.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving the existence of a joint Hindu family and joint family property rested on the plaintiff. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the property in dispute was not joint family property. The doctrine of election was held to be inapplicable in the present case.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree for partition was set aside, and the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed. The respondents were ordered to bear their own costs and the costs of the appellants in the appeals and the trial court.

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, J.

( 1 ) JUDGMENT in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 155 of 1995 (Kanhaiyalal and seven others v. Bhagwat Sharan and 21 others) as both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and have been preferred by different sets of defendants in the original suit.

( 2 ) THIS is a first appeal by the appellants against judgment dated 1-8-1995 pronounced by District Judge, Guna, whereby a decree for partition of certain immoveable property consisting of six houses and some agricultural lands was passed in favour of the respondent No. 1, who was the plaintiff in the suit.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the appellants and the respondents No. 1 to 14 had a common ancestor viz. , Mangatrao, who lived in Narnaul at Rajasthan. He had four sons viz. , (1) Madho Prasad, (2) Lalchand, (3) Ramchand and (4) Umraolal. Madho Prasad had no issue and, therefore, he adopted Hariram, who was the real son of his brother Lalchand. Similarly, Ramchand also had no issue and he also adopted another son of Lalchand viz. , Shriram, Ramchand himself had gone in adoption to one Gourimal of Gwalior. The appellants were the widow, sons and daughter of that Hariram, who was the adopted son of Madho Prasad. The respondents No. 1 to 14 are the grand children and a daughter-in-law of Umraolal, the fourth son of Mangatrao, Respondent No. 17, Kanhaiyalal, is brother of the wife of hariram. Respondent No. 16, Shyamsunder, was the son-in-law of Hariram. Respondent No. 15, Om Prakash, was grand son of Lalchand and son of Shriram, who was originally the brother of Hariram. Remaining respondents are the widow and sons of one Shivcharanlal. Some of the agricultural lands in dispute, to wit, agricultural lands shown in para 9 (2) (d), 9 (2) (c), 9 (2) (e) and 9 (2) (b) were recorded in the revenue records in the name of the said Kanhaiyalal, Shyamsunder, Shivcharan and Shriram respectively. These Kanhaiyalal, Shyamsunder, Shriram's son (since Shriram was dead) Omprakash and the widow and four sons of Shivcharanlal were the defendants numbered 19 to 26 in the original suit and are the appellants in the First Appeal No. 155 of 1995.

( 4 ) IT is also not disputed that out of six houses in dispute five were mortgaged through a deed executed by Hariram, Brajmohan, Rameshwar and Radhakrishna with one Seth Budhmal s/o Phoolchand Jain. Said Budhmal s/o Phoolchand had filed a suit for foreclosure which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 3 of 1995 and in that suit the said Hariram, Brajmohan, Rameshwar and Radhakrishna had filed a written statement wherein they had admitted that the said five houses were the property of their trading joint Hindu family. These very houses were also mortgaged with the then Krishnarao Baldeo Bank, later on 9-10-55 by the same four persons. All the houses were released from mortgage after sale of three of those houses by Hariram. Hariram had, before his death, executed a will in which he has bequeathed part of the property in dispute to different respondents and a part was also bequeathed to the respondent Bhagwat Sharan, who later on, had filed a suit against a tenant Hansraj claiming as the owner and landlord, on the basis of the said will, of the property possessed by Mansraj as a tenant.

( 5 ) THE civil suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed by respondent-Bhagwatsharan against the appellants of these two appeals as well as the remaining respondents, for partition of immoveable property consisting of six houses specifically described in para. 9 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) and agricultural lands described in para 9 (2) of the plaint. In his suit the plaintiff had claimed that the suit property consisting of the said six houses and the agricultural lands was actually property of a Hindu undivided family consisting of him, the appellants in this appeal No. 141. 95 and the respondents No. 2 to 14 of this appeal No. 141. 95. According to him, late Madhoprasad around 70 years before together with hi

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top