Burden of Proof: Proving Self-Acquired Property Claims

2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 768

, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to discharge their initial burden to prove that the suit property is the joint family property. ... was available and that the said property had been purchased from the said nucleus and that the burden to prove such a situation lay on the party, who so asserted it. ... The question to be determined in the present ....

2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4476

The plaintiff failed to prove any surplus from the family nucleus to buy these properties in the name of the first defendant as Manager of the family. ... If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired #H....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

The burden should be applied to the defendant, who controlled the late father's company account, to prove that he had paid for the plaintiff's share of the Property; and (b) the SCJ failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence and wrongly applied the burden of proof and this led to the ... The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to prove what he had alleged, tha....

2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 821

It held as on date of acquisition of item no.11 property, HUF had sufficient nucleus for acquiring it and defendants failed to establish that it as self-acquired. ... It turned down contention of defendants about item no.11 property being self-acquired property on ground that, once status of HUF was accepted, property purchased in name of one member would be presumed HU....

2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 452

Even defendant No.6 has admitted that except Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 10 and 13, which are his self- acquired priorities, rest of the suit properties are the joint family property. ... Therefore, it was incumbent upon defendant No.6 to have led independent evidence in support of his claim of Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 10 and 13, being his self-acquired priorities, which he has failed to do. ... That, since defendant No.6 took specific ple....

High Court Malaya Penang

He who asserts must prove. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs to prove their allegation of a trust. I find that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the alleged trust on a balance of probabilities. ... They have failed to discharge the legal burden and the evidential burden. Consequently, this action must be dismissed. ... It is my finding that th....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

[41] It is trite law that the burden to prove the existence of any fact, it is on the party that alleges it. ... (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. ... [50] For the above reasons, on the balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff has failed to discharge her burden of proof. ... [62] Likewise, the Defend....

According to our law, regard being had to the definition of " proved ", he has failed to prove those facts and he has also thereby failed to prove his defence which is conditioned by the supposition that those facts existed. ... But Counsel's argument is that, although the accused has failed to carry conviction to the minds of the Jury, the prosecution has failed to discharge its #HL....

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20356

the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants and it is the burden to prove on the person who claims that a particular property is a self acquired property and the Courts ... Trial Court while answering issue No.5, the burden on defendant No.1 to prove that the suit schedule C property is self ....

2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1560

Except the oral testimony of witnesses, plaintiff has failed to prove any document to prove her possession on the suit property. The plaintiff has failed to prove her possession. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. ... The learned trial Court has opined that the plaintiff has failed to prove even site plan of the suit pr....

2021 0 Supreme(UK) 574

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimback Tanksale (dead) & Ors reported in (2007) 6 SCC 737 has held that the suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that title. In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Nomi Singh and another reported in (2015) 14 SCC 450 has held that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs by proving his case. It is settled position in law that t....

2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 1114

The appellants have failed to discharge the burden to prove that the suit property was separate or self-acquired property of Mangal Kumhar. 5. The contention raised by the appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquired property. The said contention is legally misconceived since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any....

2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1209

(See-Mulla-Hindu Law, 22nd Edition Article 23 “Presumption as to coparcenary and self acquired property” pages 346 and 347).” (emphasis supplied) The Appellants have failed to discharge the burden to prove that the suit property was separate or self-acquired property of Mangal Kumhar.

2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 1083

The Lower Appellate Court further found that the first defendant-female member of the family had acquired Suit Item Nos.2 to 15 and taking into consideration the ratio laid down in K.S.Palanisami v. K.S.Pongulappan [2014-1-L.W.] found that there is no clear cut evidence to disprove the self acquiring capacity of the first defendant-female member and that the plaintiffs had also failed to probablise their case that the deceased plaintiff has made contribution for acquisition of the Suit Item No....

2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 2517

The aforesaid record and conduct of the defendant No. 1 are sufficient to prove on preponderance of probability that land Gat Nos. 202 and 498 were being cultivated by all four sons of Mahadu as tenants and land Gat No. 475 was initially with Mahadu for cultivation and after his death his sons started cultivating this land. 1. In any case the burden was on the defendant No. 1, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, to prove that it is his self acquired property a....