Back
High Court Of Orissa
D. M. PATNAIK
SANTANU KUMAR DAS - Appellant
Versus
BAIRAGI CHARAN DAS - Respondent
Second Appeal 168 Of 1989
Decided On : 03/13/1995
PROPERTY LAW - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION - PROPERTY PURCHASED IN NAME OF FEMALE MEMBER - SUFFICIENCY OF NUCLEUS - GIFT DEED - VALIDITY - EXECUTION - POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership of the disputed land purchased by their paternal grandmother, Satchi, in 1935-37. Defendant No. 1, Satchi's younger brother, claimed that the property was joint family property and that he had been possessing half of it since 1968. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court's finding that the joint family did not have sufficient nucleus to purchase the property was correct and should not have been reversed by the lower appellate court. It also held that the presumption of joint family property does not apply to property purchased in the name of a female member, and that the plaintiffs had proved the validity of the gift deed executed by Satchi in their favor. The court further found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property and that the defendants had not established a case of adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the joint family had sufficient nucleus to purchase the disputed property? 2. Whether the presumption of joint family property applies to property purchased in the name of a female member? 3. Whether the gift deed executed by Satchi in favor of the plaintiffs was valid? 4. Who was in possession of the disputed property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lower appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's finding that the joint family did not have sufficient nucleus to purchase the property. It noted that the defendants failed to provide evidence of the family's income and that the trial court's finding was based on an appreciation of the evidence. 2. The court held that the presumption of joint family property does not apply to property purchased in the name of a female member. It relied on the decision in Manahari Devi v. Choudhury Sibanava Das, which held that the presumptive doctrine available in respect of property in the name of a male is not available in the case of a female member. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs had proved the validity of the gift deed executed by Satchi in their favor. It noted that the defendants did not plead fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation, and that the plaintiffs had proved the execution of the deed through the evidence of the scribe and the attesting witness. 4. The court held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property and that the defendants had not established a case of adverse possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the lower appellate court judgment was set aside, and the trial court judgment was affirmed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The presumption that property is joint family property does not apply when the property is purchased in the name of a female family member. The burden of proof lies on the party claiming it is joint family property to establish that the property was acquired from the joint fund (!) (!) (!) .
The property in question was purchased during a period when the family was living jointly, and the head of the family was the male member who managed the family affairs. There was insufficient evidence to prove that the joint family had a sufficient nucleus or common fund from which the property was purchased (!) (!) (!) .
The property was purchased in the name of Satchi, the grandmother, during her husband's absence, and it is presumed that the purchase was made from her husband's funds, which belonged to the family estate. The evidence does not support the claim that the property was purchased from the joint family fund (!) (!) .
The validity of the gift deed executed by Satchi in favor of the plaintiffs was established through credible evidence, including the testimony of witnesses who proved her execution of the deed. The absence of pleadings alleging fraud or undue influence supports the validity of the gift (!) .
The plaintiffs were found to be in possession of the disputed land, and the defendants did not establish adverse possession or prove that they had acquired title through such possession. The possession of the plaintiffs was deemed lawful and sufficient (!) .
The appellate court's reversal of the trial court's findings regarding possession and the sufficiency of the family nucleus was not supported by the evidence. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, establishing the plaintiffs' ownership and possession rights (!) .
The court clarified that even if a female member continues to be part of the joint family, property purchased solely in her name cannot automatically be presumed to be joint family property without additional evidence proving the source of funds or the intention of the family (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the trial court's decision was upheld, with parties bearing their own costs (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
D. M. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS' suit for permanent injunction at the first instance being decreed by the Lower Court and thereafter reversed by the lower appellate Court, they are in appeal.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS' case is, their paternal grandmother Satchi Dasi, wife of Krushna, the common ancestor, purchased the disputed lands more fully described in the plaint measuring about 1. 17 decimals in village Urunia by two sale-deeds dated 21-3-1935 and 8-3-1937 respectively for a total consideration of Rs. 138/-
( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS are sons of Upendra and defendant No. 1 Bairagi is latter's younger brother. Satchi, mother of Upendra and Bairagi, was impleaded as defendant No. 3 but she died during the pendency of the suit. Dispute arose, according to the plaintiffs, when Satchi by way of a registered deed dated 21-6-1978 gifted away the property in favour of them and it is alleged that, when the plaintiffs tried to carry on agricultural operation, defendant No. 1 with his men created disturbance in the possession. Hence, plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction. Defendant No, 1's case is, this property was the joint family property inasmuch as, this was purchased when the family members were living jointly and with a view to maintain goodwill in the family, this was so purchased in the name of Satchi but out of the common fund. That Satchi having her own Stridhan was denied. It was further pleaded that in the year 1968 when both the branches effected mutual partition by metes and bounds, defendant No. 1 since that year has been possessing half of the disputed land in his own right, title and interest. Therefore, he claimed dismissal of the suit.
( 4 ) THOUGH extensive argument was advanced by Mr. U. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Y. S. N. Murty, learned counsel for the respondents, in support of their respective contentions and both of them referred to the evidence of the witnesses and the documents on record, yet it would be sufficient to discuss the following disputed points which are felt essential for the proper decision of the case at hand.
( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the property in question was purchased in the name of Satchi when the family members were living jointly and naturally Krushna, father of Upendra and Bairagi, was the manager and Karta of the family. The case of defendant Bairagi is that, the property in question was purchased from the joint family fund and it was so purchased in the name of Satchi to maintain good will with her. The lower Court found that there was no sufficient nucleus out of which the property in question could have been purchased. The reasons in arriving at such a conclusion are that, the joint family had only a little more than two acres of land, there was no evidence with regard to the actual income of the family, parties were also cultivating some lands of others on Bhag and, lastly, because of insufficient and inadequate income for the maintenance of the family, Krushna was compelled to work outside for about four to five months in a year.
( 6 ) THE lower appellate Court reversed this finding and held that the joint family had sufficient nucleus. This finding is found to be not based on any evidence because the lower appellate Court was conscious that defendant Bairagi failed to state the income of the family from the agricultural lands. Though he admitted that Krushna was also sending money, he could not say what was the amount (even roughly that was being received from Krushna ). The Court held that the family was also cultivating the lands of others on Bhag and it considered this as a reason to hold that the income of the family was sufficient. Secondly, its finding which was based on the admission of PW 1 that the family was meeting the expenses of Satchi from the common fund also led it to conclude the sufficiency of the joint family nucleus. These reasons can hardly be accepted as correct to hold that there was sufficient nucleus out of which the property in
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
