CASE LAW ON PROPERTIES OF JOINT FAMILY, ANCESTRAL, COPARCENARY, SELF ACQUIRED

The mere fact that the properties were not separately entered by the coparcener in the book of account or that he did not maintain a separate account of earnings from these properties would not deprive the properties of their character of self acquired properties. AIR 1976 SC 1715.

Where ancestral property which is sold in execution of decree against the karta is subsequently acquired by a coparcener with the aid of his own funds, the property would be treated as the self acquired property of the co-parcener. Revappa case AIR 1960 Mys 97.

The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property is on person who on first instance claims it as so. AIR 1960 SC 335. Only after the possession of adequate nucleus is shown, the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self acquired, affirmatively to make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the joint family estate. AIR 1969 SC 1076. One of the tests in determination of the adequacy of the nucleus is the income which yields. AIR 1984 SC 1171.

Where the manager of HUF claims that what is acquired is his separate property he should prove that he acquired it with his separate funds. AIR 1961 SC 1268, AIR 1969 SC 1076. Where there is an acquisition by the manager in his own name and there is no independent source of income, the presumption arises that the new acquisition was joint family property. AIR 1954 SC 379, AIR 1959 SC 906.

If the admissions are made by a member, then the onus shifts on him to prove that what he admitted is not true. AIR 1961 SC 1268.

The principle of Mitakshara Law that sons have independent co-parcenary rights in the ancestral estate and that father is subject to their control in he alienation of family property has been almost destroyed by the principle which has been established by the decisions that sons cannot setup their rights against their fathers alienation for an antecedent debt or against his creditors remedies for their debts, if not tainted with immorality, though not incurred for the family necessity or benefit. AIR 1952 SC 170. The concurrence of all the adult members is conclusive presumption of law. AIR 1951 Mys 38.FB.

The settled law through decisions of Privy council and various High courts is that A sale or mortgage of family property by the managing member is valid on the ground of justifying family necessity where it is: (a) For the payment of decree debts and other debts binding on the family. (b) To pay off the claims of Govt on account of Land Revenue, cesses, taxes and other dues. (c) For the payment of rents due to the landlord or the payment of decrees for arrears of rent obtained by land lord against family. (d) For the maintenance of members of the family. (e) For the purpose of defraying the expenses of the first marriage of the co-parcener and of daughters born in the family. (f) For the expenses of the necessary family ceremonies including funeral and annual shradha. (g) For the expenses of necessary litigation in connection with the recovery or protection of the joint estate or the establishment of adoption of his minor son. (h) For the expenses of defending the head of the family or any member against a serious criminal charge. (i) For the purpose of carrying on an ancestral trade or business. (j) To raise money to avert a sale or destruction of the whole or any part of the family property. (k) For the expenses of necessary repairs to the family residential house or family properties and for the protection of fields and lands belonging to the family from floods etc.,

Managers discretion regarding legal necessity or benefit of the estate can be subjected to judicial review. AIR 1964 SC 1385.

It is not open for a coparcener to sue for injunction restraining the manager from alienating on the ground that it is not for legal necessity or benefit. B.C.Ray, Justice however observed that injunction may be granted in case of waste or ouster. Sunil kumar case: AIR 1988 SC 576.

Gift by a manager even of a small extent of Joint family property to a relative out of love and affection is void as it is not a gift for pious purposes ( i.e religious and charitable purposes ) within the meaning of that expression in Hindu Law. Guramma v/s Mallappa AIR 1964 SC 510. see also AIR 1967 SC 569. A gift to a concubine or stranger is void. AIR 1980 SC 253.

In Krishnamurthy v/s Abdul khadar case AIR 1956 Mys 14 Where the property is acquired by the managing member and all the members of the family are in possession of the family property, it could very well be presumed that the new acquisition is family property.

Hindu Law:- Husband, wife and children living together constitute joint family. Property acquired by members of such joint family is presumed to be joint family property or coparcenary property not withstanding fact that it was acquired without the aid of ancestral nucleus, unless contrary is proved. Parties by their conduct and treatment of property in their hands, can impress self acquired property with character of joint family property with character of joint family property. Krishnamurthy case before KHC reported in 2005(3) KarLJ 420.

Presumption of Joint Hindu Family : The Law

Justice A.K. MathurSupreme Court of India

The Supreme Court inAppasaheb Peerappa Chandgade vs Devendra Peerappa Chandgadehas ruled on the presumption regarding joint family property under the Hindu law. The Supreme Court after considering various precedents on the subject, held that there is no presumption of joint family property, and whoever alleges the existence of the same must prove it through evidence. The Supreme Court further added that if it is shown that the propertieswere acquired out of the family nucleus, the initial burden is discharged by the person who claims joint Hindu family, and the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property by cogent and necessary evidence. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow;

6. We have gone through the records and heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. So far the legal proposition is concerned, there is no gain saying that whenever a suit for partition and determination of share and possession thereof is filed, then the initial burden is on the plaintiff to show that the entire property was a joint Hindu family property and after initial discharge of the burden, it shifts on the defendants to show that the property claimed by them was not purchased out of the joint family nucleus and it was purchased independent of them. This settled proposition emerges from various decisions of this Court right from 1954 onwards.

7. In the case ofSrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devli Kango and Ors., their Lordships held that proof ofthe existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property. Therefore, so far as the proposition of law is concerned, the initial burden is on the person who claims that it was joint family property but after initial discharge of the burden, it shifts to the party who claims that the property has been purchased by him through his own source and not from the joint family nucleus. Same proposition has been followed in the case ofMst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Ors.wherein it was observed as follows:

There is a presumption in Hindu Law that a family is joint. There can be a division in status among the members of a joint Hindu family by definement of shares which is technically called "division of status", or an actual division among them by allotment of specific property to each one of them which is described as "division by metes and bounds". A member need not receive any share in the joint estate but may renounce his interest therein; his renunciation merely extinguishes his interest in the estate but does not affect that status of the remaining members vis-a-vis the family property. A division in status can be effected by an unambiguous declaration to become divided from the others and that intention can be expressed by any process. Though prima facie a document clearly expressing the intention to divide brings about a division in status, it is open to a party to prove that the said document was a sham or a nominal one not intended to be acted upon but was conceived and executed for an ulterior purpose. But there is no presumption that any property, whether moveable or immoveable, held by a member of a joint Hindu family, is joint family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. But if he proves that there was sufficient joint family nucleus from and out of which the said property could have been acquired, the burden shifts to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property to establish that the said property has been acquired without any assistance from the joint family property.

Similarly, in the case ofAchuthan Nair v. Chinnammu Amma and Ors., their Lordships held as follows:

Under Hindu law, when a property stands in the name of a member of a joint family, it is incumbent upon those asserting that it is a joint family property to establish it. When it is proved or admitted that a family possessed sufficient nucleus with the aid of which the member might have made the acquisition, the law raises a presumption that it is a joint family property and the onus is shifted to the individual member to establish that the property was acquired by him without the aid of the said nucleus. This is a well settled proposition of law.

Similarly, in the case ofBhagwant P. Sulakhe v. Digambar Gopal Sulakhe and Ors., their Lordships have held thatthe character of any joint family property does not change with the severance of the status of the joint family and a joint family property continues to retain its joint family character so long as the joint family property is in existence and is not partitioned amongst the co-sharers. By a unilateral act it is not open to any member of the joint family to convert any joint family property into his personal property.

8. In the case ofSurendra Kumar v. Phoolchand (dead) through LRs and Anr.their Lordships held as follows:

It is no doubt true that there is no presumption that a family because it is joint possessed joint property and therefore the person alleging the property to be joint has to establish that the family was possessed of some property with the income of which the property could have been acquired. But such a presumption is a presumption of fact which can be rebutted/ But where it is established or admitted that the family which possessed joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed sufficient nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the presumption arises that it was the joint property and the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family.

Therefore, on survey of the aforesaid decisions what emerges is that there is no presumption of a joint Hindu family but on the evidence if it is established that the property was joint Hindu family property and the other properties were acquired out of that nucleus, if the initial burden is discharged by the person who claims joint Hindu family, then the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property by cogent and necessary evidence.- See more at: http://www.legalblog.in/2011/10/presumption-of-joint-hindu-family-law.html#sthash.r1X3OZjT.dpuf