Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 351 (3.13 seconds)
Documents citing D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003

Ram Asrey And Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And ... on 2 January, 2024

12. In D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L.Balasubramanyam [D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam, (2003) 10 SCC 310] this Court held as follows : (D.S. Lakshmaiah case [D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam, (2003) 10 SCC 310] , SCC p. 317, para 18) "18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available."
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Aswani Kumar on 28 February, 2012

13. In the instant case, there is no specific pleading in the plaint that the suit property was purchased with the aid of joint family funds and also plaintiffs did not adduce any cogent and clinching evidence, documentary or oral, in support of the above contention raised. Indisputably, the plaintiffs and defendants are residing separately. Plaintiffs also could not bring on record any material showing the nature and character of the suit property as joint Hindu family property. On the contrary, the defendants/appellants, by filing relevant documents (Ex.D.3 and D.6) have proved the fact that the suit property was purchased by late Vishnu Datt Tiwari. It is also an admitted fact that late Vishnu Datt Tiwari was working as Bhandari with the Pandariya Jamindar/King and certainly was having sufficient income of purchasing the suit property. The trial Court, therefore, went wrong in putting the burden upon the defendants to prove the property as self-acquired property of late Vishnu Datt Tiwari, as held by the Supreme Court in D.S.Lakshmaiha and another v. L. Balasubramanyam and another (supra) and in holding the suit property as joint family property and not as self-acquired property of late Vishnu Datt Tiwari.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govindammal vs Anjugam on 28 March, 2024

47. The very same position in law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marabasappa (died) by Lrs. & Ors. Ningappa (died) by LRs. & Ors., reported in 2011 (9) SCC 451, wherein again the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that unless it is shown that there was sufficient surplus or there was detriment to the joint family property, the acquisitions by members in their own name cannot be treated as joint family property. One of us (R.Subramanian, J.) had an occasion to consider the very same question in G.K.Palanisamy, Prop. Sri Kathirvelu Finance Vs. Amudhaveni & Ors., reported in 2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 264, wherein after referring to D.S.Lakshmaiah & Anr. Vs. L.Balasubrmanyam & Anr., as well as Muniappa Naicker Vs.Balakrishna Naicker, referred to above, the essential requirements to enable the Court to invoke the presumption regarding joint family properties were set out in the paragraphs 20 and 21 as under:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Soundhararajan vs M.Dhanachakravarthi (Died) ...1St on 8 December, 2015

25.The law is well settled that "there is no presumption of a the property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. There was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available." It has been held in the judgment reported in 2003 (1) Supreme Court Cases 310, in the case of D.S.Lakshmaiah and others Vs. L.Balasubramanyam and others.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandrika Prasad Dead Through Lrs vs Ghanika Prasad Dead Through Lrs 47 ... on 19 December, 2019

12. Likewise, in the matter of D.S. Lakshmaiah and another v. L. Balasubramanyam and another 4 the Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decisions in this regard and held as under:­ "18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self­acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Chellammal (Died) vs Dhanalakshmi (Died)

The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out joint family nucleus that was available.” 33\48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 307 of 2008 (B) D.S. Lakshmaiah and Another Vs. L. Balasubramanyam and Another ((2003) 10 SCC 310) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.18, observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Manar Developers (P) Ltd vs Mr Sreenivasa Reddy on 19 December, 2024

63. The next question that needs to be addressed is whether Sy.No.37 standing in the name of defendant No.1 32 SLP (Civil) No.25213/2024 DD 19-11-2024 61 RFA No.1433/2014 C/W RFA NO.1525/2014, RFA CROB NO.1/2015 Gopal Reddy, had remained to be the ancestral property. It is settled proposition of law that though there is a presumption that a joint hindu family exists unless there is proof of severance, but there is no such presumption that the property is the joint family property. A person seeking the partition has to establish that the property is an ancestral joint family property. The primary burden of proving that it is the joint family property is on the person seeking partition. The Apex Court in the case of D.S. Lakshmaiah and another Vs. L. Balasubramanyam and another and in the case of Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade Vs. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade and others referred supra and in catena of decisions laid down the above principle. Therefore, it is the plaintiff who has to establish that the properties are the joint family properties.
Karnataka High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document

Smt. Dropadi Devi And Ors. vs Shiv Chandra Dixit on 23 January, 2020

Moreover, the Apex Court and this Court in the cases of D.S. Lakshmaiah (supra) and Kunj Bihari Vs. Ganga Sahai Pandey (supra) respectively has lucidly explained the law regarding Joint Family Property which squarely applies Thus, applying the aforesaid principles, it would indicate that as far as the joint family property is concerned, the plaintiff could not bring any document or evidence on record to indicate and establish that the property in question was the Joint Family Property, hence the submission of Sri Arif Khan does not find favour with this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 9 - J Singh - Full Document

Air Commodore Randhir Pratap(Retd.) vs Union Of India Through ... on 3 November, 2023

In D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam [D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam, (2003) 10 SCC 310] this Court held as follows : (D.S. Lakshmaiah case [D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam, (2003) 10 SCC 310] , SCC p. 317, para 18) "18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property Patna High Court CR. WJC No.623 of 2023 dt.03-11-2023 35/40 only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available."
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A K Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next