Back
No From Joint Inheritance:
In a significant ruling on Hindu succession, the has held that inheriting property jointly from a father does not automatically create a presumption of a or . Justice Vivek Jain, while partly allowing an appeal, also invalidated a executed by a deceased brother just five days before his death, citing .
The Dispute Over a Dying Declaration
The case revolved around the estate of Rameshwar Prasad, who died issueless in . His two brothers, Baladatt and Moolchand, filed a suit seeking to declare a in favor of their sister Krishni Devi and her husband Bhagwati Prashad as . They also sought a declaration that the properties—comprising five survey numbers inherited from their father Vrindavan (who died around ) and five more survey numbers acquired in Rameshwar Prasad’s name—were property. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the properties to be and the invalid. Aggrieved, Krishni Devi and her husband appealed.
Breaking Down the Joint Family Myth
The appellants argued that the trial court erroneously presumed the existence of a merely because the brothers had jointly inherited property. They contended that jointly held property is distinct from . The respondents countered that their father died before the , so the property devolved under classical Hindu law, and since no occurred, the joint family continued.
Justice Jain rejected the trial court’s “drastic proposition.” He observed that upon a father’s death, each son succeeds in his own right. Joint revenue records only indicate unpartitioned shares, not a . The court noted that the plaintiffs themselves did not plead in their plaint, describing the property merely as “jointly owned.” The court relied on the ’s decision in Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade vs. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade (2007) 1 SCC 521, which held there is no presumption of a and the initial burden lies on the claimant.
“This Court does not agree with such drastic proposition by the Trial Court that if some children inherit any property from their father jointly, then every property which would be acquired by his children would be property and there would be or ,” Justice Jain stated.
A Shrouded in Suspicion
The court also examined the of Rameshwar Prasad, an notarized five days before his death. The included the son-in-law of the beneficiaries and a chance acquaintance met in court premises. Justice Jain found these circumstances suspicious, noting the son-in-law’s attempt to conceal his relationship. The court upheld the trial court’s finding that the was .
The Final Verdict
The High Court modified the trial court’s decree. It held that the five survey numbers acquired by Rameshwar Prasad in his lifetime are his individual property, not joint family property. His share in the as well as his shall devolve equally upon the two plaintiffs and defendant No.1 (Krishni Devi) as under the Hindu Succession Act, each getting a 1/3rd share. The parties were directed to approach the authority under for . The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the trial court’s decree only to the extent of the shares.
The ruling clarifies that mere joint inheritance does not create a legal presumption of , and that subsequent acquisitions in individual names remain separate unless proved otherwise.
