Evidence Act, 1872—Section 58—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Devolution of Property. Hindu Law—Section 8—This case addresses various principles under Hindu Law, Evidence Law, Land Laws, and the Transfer of Property Act—It is held that a mere partition among co-owners does not automatically classify property as joint family or ancestral unless there is evidence of prior joint family property or contributions from it—Evidence of admissions, particularly in cross-examination, must be clear and consistent, as isolated or contradictory statements from elderly witnesses may not be conclusive—Under the Madras Minor Inams Act, a Ryotwari Patta grants entitlement to cultivate but does not define property character or confer absolute rights—In partition suits, one co-owner’s possession is...
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100—High Court’s Jurisdiction in Second Appeal—In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the High Court’s jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law—It cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb factual findings of lower courts unless exceptional circumstances under Section 103 CPC are met—The High Court may interfere only when the findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, contrary to law, or unsupported by evidence—Mere disagreement with conclusions of fact is not a valid ground for interference—This ensures finality to factual determinations and upholds judicial discipline in appellate review. (Paras 12 to 12.2) (B) Hindu Law—Ancestral Property—Under Hindu law, once joint famil...
Hindu Law, while there is a presumption of a joint family, there is no assumption that a Hindu family possesses joint property—The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property to demonstrate the existence of an adequate nucleus of ancestral property, from which subsequent acquisitions could have been made—Once the nucleus is established, the burden shifts to the member claiming property as self-acquired to prove that it was obtained without the aid of joint family funds—Properties acquired in the joint names of family members are presumed to be joint family property, especially when there is evidence of an existing joint family nucleus and no proof of independent income or contribution by the acquirers—Further, property received by a coparcener on partition of ancestral joint f...
Evidence Act, 1872—Section 60—The Mitakshara school of Hindu Law, property obtained by a coparcener through partition retains its ancestral character vis-a-vis his male issue (sons, grandsons, etc.), who acquire an interest in it by birth—The mere recital of self-acquired property in a partition deed does not conclusively establish its nature if evidence proves the existence of an ancestral nucleus and subsequent acquisitions made without separate funds—While there is a presumption of jointness in Hindu families, there is no presumption of joint property, and the burden of proof rests on the party claiming joint family property to establish a sufficient nucleus for acquisitions—After the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the joint tenancy is converted into tenancy-in-common, and coparcen...
Civil Law—Property Law—Joint Family Property—Declaration suit—Partial Partition—Permissibility of—Held, in a suit for partition of shares of members of a joint family, it is necessary to bring all the joint properties into the hotchpot failing which, the suit would be for a partial partition, which is not maintainable—The rule requiring inclusion of the entire joint estate in a suit for partition is not a rigid and in elastic rule which can admit of no exception. This rule aims at preventing multiplicity of legal proceedings. [Hateshar Kuer v/s Sakaldeo Singh, (1969) 2 SCWR 414—Followed] ...
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 16(1), 16(2) and 16(3)—A child who is conferred with legislative legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the law is entitled to the ancestral or coparcenary property of the parents—However, the child is not entitled to the self-earned or separate property of the parents—This applies regardless of whether the child is born before or after the commencement of Amending Act 1976, or whether a decree of nullity is granted in respect of the marriage under the Act, and the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under the enactment. If a voidable marriage is annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, a child 'begotten or conceived' before the decree is made is deemed to be the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage, and the child has rights to o...
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996—Section 8—Reference of Quarrel to arbitration—Appellant and first respondent are brothers who entered into an MoU whereby it was decided to destroy the joint family properties to repay the liabilities of their business—Said MoU contained an arbitration clause—Appellant instituted a suit against first respondent and their company seeking permanent injunction—A second suit was filed by the appellant wherein apart from first respondent and the company, Canara Bank was also made party—First respondent filed applications in both suits for reference of Quarrel to arbitration—Whether High Court rightly allowed them? Held, no. The MoU is between the appellant and the first respondent. Neither the company nor Canara bank is a party to the MoU and thereb...
Title Suit—Identification of a necessary party—Can an individual asserting an independent title and possession in opposition to a vendor's title be considered a necessary party? The court has established two essential criteria for determining who qualifies as a necessary party. These criteria are as follows—There must be a valid claim for relief against this party concerning the disputes under consideration in the proceedings—It should not be possible to issue an effective decree in the absence of this party. ...
Hindu Law — Property Law — Mitakshara school — Joint family property — Alienation of property by Karta — The Karta/Manager of a joint family property may alienate joint family property only in threenamely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family. It is settled law that where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained Thimmaiah v/s Ningamma and Anr. (2000) 7 SCC 409— Referred ...
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100 Partition of Joint family property Held, properties purchased by a Kartha in his name is deemed to be out of joint family nucleus, if joint family possessed of adequate properties that were capable to generate enough income Suit for partition and separate possession Defendant unable to establish his independent income to purchase properties that stood in his name Said findings of fact recorded by trial Court and First Appellate Court are based on oral and documentary evidence High Court cannot interfere in such findings Hence, order decreeing partition suit in favour of plaintiffs proper. [Paras 14 to 17] ...
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956—Sections 6 and 8—Suit for specific performance—Joint family property alienation by Karta—Karta can alienate for value—Whether for legal necessity or estate benefit—Binding all members—Legal necessity varies case by case—Karta's discretion valid unless challenged on lack of legal necessity or estate benefit. ...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 14 Rule 1—Framing of issues—Agreement to sell —Joint Hindu Family Property—Mulla's Hindu Law—Article 254 and 241—Coparcenary property—Alienation of—Rights of Karta—The Karta of a Hindu joint family enjoys wide discretion in taking a decision on the existence of any legal necessity for disposing of joint family property—A coparcener who has right to claim a share in the joint Hindu family estate cannot seek injunction against the Karta restraining him—Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows. ...
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 125—Hindu Law—Partition and Separate Possession—Joint Family Property—Amendment of Relief—The plaintiff sought a declaration of equal share in ancestral properties—The defendants contended prior partition and improper framing of the suit, arguing it should have been for partition—Both the trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit based on technical grounds, focusing on the relief for "declaration" rather than partition—However, the appellate court ruled that under Hindu law, the plaintiff’s birthright in joint family properties entitled him to partition and separate possession, irrespective of technical errors—The court held that under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, courts can grant relief supported by pleadings and evidence...
Hindu Law—Property Law Shi Pain death of the Father (propositus of the Family) the property devolving on the sons — Becomes joint family property — Property inherited from paternal ancestors is, of course, "ancestral property" as regards the male issue of the propositus, but it is his absolute property and not ancestral property as regards other relations....
Hindu Succession Act,1956, Sec. 30—Testamentary Succession— Mitakshara Coparcenary Property—Deposition of—By way of Will— Held, the legislature was aware of the strict rule against alienation by way of gift, it only relaxed the rule in favour of disposition by way of a Will of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property— Therefore, the such law applies to joint family property, prior to the amendment of 2005, when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary—But, An exception is contained in the explanation to Section 30 of the Act making it clear that notwithstanding anything con...
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8...
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6...
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 30...
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—Sections 6A, 6(1), 6(1)(c)—Constitutional validity—Joint family Property—This case involves a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties, with a focus on the interpretation of Section 6(1)(e) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—The provision denies a married daughter the right to question any disposition or alienation of co-parcenary property prior to 20.12.2004, whereas a son retains such rights—The question before the Court was whether this proviso is arbitrary and violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India—The Court held that excluding married daughters from the benefit of this provision was discriminatory, as it denied them equal rights in co-parcenary property—It emphasized that...
Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 54—Hindu Law—Alienation of Joint Family Property—Sale of undivided share—Possession cannot be transferred without formal partition—Co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession without physical partition—Appellant purchased only undivided share, cannot claim ownership or possession of entire property—Equity does not arise—Decrees of lower courts affirmed—Appeal dismissed with costs. ...
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 30, Section 4, Section 6, Section 8...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2—Hindu Law—Joint family property—Partition—The severance of the status of a joint family does not alter the character of joint family property, which remains joint until partitioned—Even after severance, joint family property retains its joint character until it is partitioned among the co-sharers—No individual member can unilaterally convert joint family property into personal property—The principle emphasizes that the nature of joint family property persists until a formal partition occurs—This legal doctrine safeguards the interests of all co-sharers and prevents any single member from unilaterally altering the status of joint family assets—The continuity of joint family property underscores the collective ownership and rights of all fa...
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 8(2), Section 8—Minor in joint family property—which outlines the powers and restrictions of natural guardians concerning a minor's estate—It was clarified that Section 8 does not extend to the undivided interest of a minor in joint family property—The court emphasized that natural guardians, including a father acting as the Karta of a Hindu joint family, are not bound by Section 8's restrictions when dealing with joint family property—The decision harmonizes with precedents, noting that a Karta may alienate joint family property, including a minor's share, if justified under Hindu law—The court rejected arguments that Section 8 imposes undue restrictions on a father's powers and upheld the notion that such powers remain unaffected...
Electricity Act, 1910—Section 3—Hindu Law—Joint Family Property—In a suit for partition of joint family property, the court examines whether the property was part of the joint family assets as of the partition date—The karta (manager) of a joint family is accountable for the existing state of the property—However, in the absence of fraud or improper conduct, the karta's liability is limited to the condition of the property at the time of the partition—Moreover, when determining the nature of property acquisition, it is presumed that property acquired by a member of a joint family was purchased from joint family funds, provided there was a sufficient nucleus of joint family assets—This presumption holds if the joint family had adequate resources to make such acquisitions, affirming that p...
Hindu Law—A Hindu female's limited estate inherited from her father cannot be blended with her husband's joint family property—Blending occurs when a member of a joint Hindu family integrates self-acquired property with joint family property, resulting in the combined property being treated as joint family property—However, a limited estate, such as that inherited by a Hindu female or a widow, cannot be merged with the joint family property of her husband—While a limited owner can accelerate reversion by surrendering their estate, this must be done in accordance with established rules of surrender—A Hindu female with a limited estate cannot circumvent these rules by allowing her estate to be considered part of the joint family property, as this would contradict the fundamental principles of blend...
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - S.10 , S.14 , S.20 , S.4 , S.8 , S.9—Partition of joint family property—The appellant, Mst. Samubai, is the mother of two sons, Sheshmal and Magan Lal—Ttrial judge initially ruled that the sons should each receive a half share, and the mother should get nothing due to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956. However, the higher court disagreed, stating that the Act did not take away the mother's right to claim a share in the joint family property—The appeal was allowed, and the mother was granted a 1/3rd share, as were her sons. ...
The partition of an impartible estate under Hindu Law, the Supreme Court examined whether the joint family property had ceased to be joint and had become separate property—The Court emphasized that to infer a partition of an impartible estate, there must be clear evidence of an express or implied intention by the junior family members to relinquish their right of succession to the estate—It was held that such intention must be clearly established through substantial evidence, demonstrating a renunciation of succession rights and a decision to treat the estate as separate property—In this case, the evidence presented was trivial and inconclusive—Statements made by family members in 1889 and 1890 indicated no intention to forgo their rights to the zamindari—Consequently, the Court concluded that no partition co...