Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appellants/defendants contested the suit denying the allegations made against the third appellant and further contended that the properties are not joint family properties and they were not purchased out of the joint family nucleus and they are the separate properties of the appellants/defendants. Therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the properties by birth

4. The Trial Court, dismissed the suit holding that no evidence was let in by the respondents/plaintiffs about the ancestral properties that was lying in the hands of the first appellant and no evidence was let in prove the income from the ancestral nucleus and in the absence of any such evidence, adduced by the respondents/plaintiffs, it cannot be stated that the suit properties are purchased out of the income from the joint family properties. Further, the suit properties are purchased in the year 1983, as evidenced by Exs.A1 and A2 whereas, the joint family properties were sold only in the year 1984, as evidenced by Ex.B1. Therefore, it cannot be stated that out of the sale proceeds of the joint family properties, the suit properties are purchased and as the respondents/plaintiffs failed to prove that the joint family was having sufficient ancestral properties, which provided the consideration for purchase of the suit properties, they are not entitled to the relief of partition.

Where it is established or admitted 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 presumption arises that it was joint property and the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmative that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family. However, no such presumption would arise if the nucleus is such that with its held the property claimed to be joint could not have been acquired. In order to give rise to the presumption the nucleus must be such that with its held the property claimed to be joint could have been acquired. "

The wide proposition that once the ancestral nucleus is proved or admitted the onus on the member to prove that the property acquired was his self-acquisition cannot be accepted as correct. The existence of some nucleus is not the sole criterion to impress the subsequent acquisitions with family character. What is to be shown is that the family had as a result of the nucleus sufficient surplus income from which the subsequent acquisitions could be made? Alternatively, this may be shown from the nature and relative value of the nucleus itself. This is the second phase in the onus of proof, which lies on the person, who sets up the family character of the property.

Where, however, the existence of the nucleus is shown and no other source of income is disclosed the presumption may be made that the nucleus was sufficient to enable the property to be acquired. Such being the presumption, if any member of the family claims any portion of the property, as his separate property, the burden lies upon him in any such case to that it was acquired by him in circumstances which would constitute it is separate property.

He may do so by showing that the income of the existing ancestral property was employed in other ways, or was kept intact. If he adduces no evidence, the presumption that the property was joint family property, must prevail. The mere fact that it was purchased in his name and that there are receipts in his name respecting it does not render the property his separate property for all that is perfectly consistent with the notion of its being joint property. However, if, in addition to the fact that certain property stands in the name of one of the members, A, B, there be these further facts, namely that some other member of the family had acquired separate property with their own moneys and dealt with it as their own without reference to the rest of the family, and that, A, B, was allowed by the family to appear to the word to be the sole owner, the presumption that the property is joint is weakened, and the burden of proving that it is joint will lie on those who allege that it is joint. There is no presumption in case of property standing in the name of female members.