K.V. Duraisamy And Anr. vs D. Perumalsamy (Minor) And Anr. on 21 April, 1993
In K.V.Duraisamy and another v. D.Perumalsamy (minor) and another, 1993-II M.L.J.613, it was held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954
In AIR 1954 SC 379 (Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayanan Devji Kango and others, it was held that initial burden lies upon anyone, who asserts that any item of property was joint family property. It is settled law that there is no presumption that any property standing in the name of a kartha or a member of the joint family is joint family property. The person, who wants to set up the case that the property purchased in the name of the coparceners is that of the family, must plead and prove existence of joint family nucleus with sufficient evidence.
D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003
15. Placing reliance upon CDJ 2003 SC 780 : 2003 (10) SCC (D.S.Lakshmaiah v. L.Balasubramanyam), learned counsel for appellant contended that plaintiff having failed to discharge initial burden of establishing that there was any nucleus, there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. It was further submitted that it was for the plaintiff, who asserts that 'C' schedule property as joint family property, to prove that the said property is a joint family property. The said decision is in fact advantageous to the plaintiff. In paragraph 18 of the said judgment, Supreme Court has held that 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.
Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh & Ors vs Ramchandra Ravagowda Sankh & Anr on 9 January, 1969
16. As held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1969 SC 1076 (Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh and others v. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh (dead) by his legal rep. and another), initial burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, in the first instance, 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. Only after proving adequate nucleus, the onus shifts on the person, who claims the property as a self-acquisition to make out that the property was acquired without aid from joint family property.
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961
19. Since Ellappa Chowdary was Kartha of Hindu family, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the lands were acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of joint family funds of which he was in possession and management as held by Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1268 (Mallesappa v. Mallappa) and 1993-II MLJ 613 (K.V.Duraisamy and another v. D.Perumalsamy (minor) and another). In such cases, onus of proof must be placed on the Manager and not on the coparceners. No substantial evidence is forthcoming from the defendants, who asserted that 'C' schedule properties are self-acquisition of Ellappa Chowdary. When existence of adequate nucleus has been proved, lower appellate Court rightly held that 'C' schedule properties as joint family properties.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937
1