Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. It has been further submitted that the learned appellate court below has wrongly interpreted the principle of Hindu law by holding that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Late Ramchandra Prasad even when the jointness and existence of nucleus had been proved. It has been further submitted that the appellate court has failed to record categorical finding that Late Ramchandra Prasad was having sufficient earning and income by which he acquired the suit property which fact was essential to be established in order to rebut the presumption of jointness of the suit property. It has also been canvassed that the gift deed in question in favour of defendant no.1 by Late Ramchandra Prasad was definitely a void document as no gift deed of joint family properties is permissible.

20. The trial court came to the finding that Ramchandra Prasad continued to be joint with his father Durga Prasad and on this basis it has recorded the finding that the suit property was the joint family property and not the exclusive self acquired property of Ramchandra Patna High Court SA No.219 of 1991 dt. 22-08-2013 Prasad as claimed by the defendant no.1. The appellate court has concurred with the finding of the trial court that Ramchandra Prasad was joint with his father Durga Prasad but only on that ground alone it has refused to accept the suit property as joint family property and has held that as the sale deed of the suit property was in the name of Ramchandra Prasad, the legal presumption would be that the property belonged to him as his separate property, and the burden of proof would be on the plaintiffs to establish that there was adequate nucleus in the joint family out of which the suit property could have been acquired. The learned counsel for the appellants has called in question this finding of the appellate court below and has submitted that once after finding that Ramchandra Prasad was joint with his father Durga Prasad, the appellate court has committed grave error in law in not accepting the suit property to be joint family property. It has been pointedly submitted that after having established the jointness and the fact that the joint family possessed properties, the legal presumption would be that the suit property acquired in the name of Ramchandra Prasad the was joint family property.

"....The Hindu law upon this aspect of this case is well settled. Proof of the 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 is 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....................................................... "...Whether the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to shift the burden which initially rested on him of establishing that there was adequate nucleus out of which the acquisitions could have been made is one of fact depending on the nature and the extent of the nucleus. The important thing to consider is the income which the nucleus yields. A building in the occupation of the members of a family and yielding no income could not be a nucleus out of which acquisitions could be made, even though it might be Patna High Court SA No.219 of 1991 dt. 22-08-2013 of considerable value. On the other hand, a running business in which the capital invested is comparatively small might conceivably produce substantial income, which may well form the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions. These are not abstract questions of law, but questions of fact to be determined on the evidence in the case..."

22. In the case of Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh Vs. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh & Anr, AIR 1969 SC 1076 the same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court as follows:-

"....The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled. Poof of the 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..."