Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Kundan Lal vs Shankar Lal And Anr. on 6 August, 1913

C.S. Vadamalai Pillai And Ors. vs P. Subramania Chettiar And Ors. on 15 September, 1922

23. If this view be correct, the plaintiff ought to have proved that the property was acquired with the separate property of Mohan Lal or at least that after the acquisition he held it as separate property excluding the other members. The decision in Kumdan Lal v. Shankar Lal 21 Ind. Cas. 13 : 35 A. 564 : 11 A.L.J. 910, is no authority for saying that whenever property is acquired by a member of a joint Hindu family, it must 1 necessarily, be presumed to be, joint.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

(Thumbalam Gooty) Thimmayya vs Konakondla Vittobarao on 10 August, 1934

5. It is interesting to note the development of the law laid down in that Court, Ram Krishnan Das v. Tundal Mal (1911) 33 All 677 came up for consideration in Kundan Lal v. Shankar Lal (1913) 35 All 564. There the plaintiff asked for a declaration that a certain house property sought to be attached in execution of a decree against his son was his sole property and therefore not liable to be attached and sold. The finding of the lower Court had been that the family was a joint undivided Hindu family. The plaintiff-appellant contended on the evidence that the family had no ancestral property, that it was the separate property of the judgment-debtor. Richards, C. J., observed:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roshan Lal And Anr. vs Maharaj Prasad And Ors. on 19 May, 1925

2. The real question that has seriously been argued before us is that the burden of proof was wrongly thrown upon the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court said the plaintiff has failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that the property in suit is the joint ancestral property of the parties." We think that the lower appellate Court was right in laying the burden on the plaintiff. It is clear that the allegation that the property was ancestral was the only title upon which he came to Court and it was obviously for him to prove it. For the contrary proposition we are referred to by the appellants' Counsel to the case of Kundan Lal v. Shankar Lal (1913) 35 All 564. The case there is clearly distinguishable. It dealt with a case in which there had been no partition at all between the parties and the simple question whether the family being completely joint in every way and never having gone through a partition of any sort, the presumption was that any property held by an individual member of the family belonged to the joint family or not. We have here a totally different proposition. There had admittedly been a partition and the plaintiff was claiming that certain other properties were ancestral properties and that they had not been partitioned. The initial presumption certainly is that where there has been a partition it is complete and it is certainly clear here that it was for the plaintiff to prove his title. He failed to do that and we think that his suit was rightly dismissed as regards the four properties in regard to which he failed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1