Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.58 seconds)
Sri Goidu S/O Krishna Gouda vs Sri Iru on 9 December, 2024 cites

Randhi Appalaswami vs Randhi Suryanarayanamurti on 2 July, 1947

In Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh [(1969) 1 SCC 386] noticing the observations of Sir John Beaumont in Appalaswami case [AIR 1947 PC 189 : 1947 All LJ 587] it was reiterated that the burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property in the first instance is upon the person who claims it to be so. But if the possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. This is, however, subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self-acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid later observations have been made without reasons or that the Privy Council's decision does not hold so. The
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18013 RSA No. 1903 of 2007 observation that only after possession of adequate nucleus is shown that the onus shifts also gets support from Srinivas Krishnarao Kango case [AIR 1954 SC 379] where, while considering the question of shifting of burden, it has been held that the important thing to consider is the income which the nucleus yields.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 240 - Full Document

Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh vs Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh on 7 January, 1969

In Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh [(1969) 1 SCC 386] noticing the observations of Sir John Beaumont in Appalaswami case [AIR 1947 PC 189 : 1947 All LJ 587] it was reiterated that the burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property in the first instance is upon the person who claims it to be so. But if the possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. This is, however, subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self-acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid later observations have been made without reasons or that the Privy Council's decision does not hold so. The
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Baikuntha Nath Paramanik (Dead) By His ... vs Sashi Bhusan Pramanik (Dead) By His ... on 9 August, 1972

In Baikuntha Nath Paramanik v. Sashi Bhusan Pramanik [(1973) 2 SCC 334] this Court again held that when a joint family is found to be in possession of nucleus sufficient to make the impugned acquisitions then a presumption arises that the acquisitions standing in the names of the persons who were in the management of the family properties are family acquisitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Surendra Kumar vs Phoolchand (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr on 2 February, 1996

In Surendra Kumar v. Phoolchand [(1996) 2 SCC 491] this Court held that 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 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 funds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 35 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961

In Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa [AIR 1961 SC 1268] this Court held that where a manager claims that any immovable property has been acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the purchase money proceeded from his separate fund. The onus of proof in such a case has to be placed on the manager and not on his coparceners. It is difficult to comprehend how this decision lends any support to the contention of the respondents that in absence of leading any evidence, the claim of Appellant 1 of the property being self-acquired has to fail. In the cited decision, the manager was found to be in possession and in charge of the joint family funds and, therefore, it was for him to prove that despite it he purchased the property from his separate funds. In the present case, admittedly, no evidence has been led by the respondents that the first appellant was in possession of any such joint family funds or as to value or income, if any, of Item 2 property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 129 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1