Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Master Swapnil Jain vs Sanjay Jain And Ors on 19 August, 2023 cites

Mst. Rukhmabai vs Lala Laxminarayan And Others on 17 November, 1959

Rukhmabai v. Lal Laxminarayan & Ors. (1960) 2 SCR 253: AIR 1960 SC 335, the burden lies upon the person who CS DJ No.129/2017 Swapnil Jain v. Sanjay Jain & Ors. Page No.26 / 47 asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. But if he proves that there was sufficient joint family nucleous from and out of which the said property could have been acquired, the burden shifts to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property to establish that the said property has been acquired without any assistance from the joint family property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 255 - Full Document

Ratnam Chettiar & Ors vs S. M. Kuppuswami Chettiar & Ors on 18 September, 1975

28. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 in his written submissions contending that the present suit is not in the interest of minor and is a tool to extort money from the defendant no.2. That the plaintiff has no right or claim, legal or otherwise to any of the properties set out in the plaint. He laid stress upon the point that the separate income tax returns of the individuals as well as firms, clearly belies the argument relating to common income tax returns being filed or that the properties were purchased out of funds of the HUF. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnam Chettiar & Ors. v. S.M. Kuppuwami Chettiar & Ors., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 214, wherein, while upholding the rights of a minor to reopen a partition has qualified the same by holding that partition affected between the members of the Hindu Undivided Family by CS DJ No.129/2017 Swapnil Jain v. Sanjay Jain & Ors. Page No.27 / 47 their own volition and with their consent cannot be reopened, unless it is shown that the same is obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence and that the same requires strict proof because an act intra-vivos cannot be lightly set aside. It further goes on to hold that the family settlement can be reopened at the instance of a minor, if it is proved that the same was unjust, unfair and detrimental to the interest of the minor. That the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence which would show that the partition is unfair, unjust or detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff. That, at no stage, the plaintiff has made out a case that his father was incapable or not protecting his interest and therefore, the settlement was unjust, unfair and ought to be set aside. That no prayer has been made to seek declaration of release deed dated 29.12.1997 and relinquishment deed dated 03.12.2000 as invalid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 54 - S M Ali - Full Document

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

32. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff whose counsel relied upon cases titled as Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxmi Narayan & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 335 and Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Rawagowda Sankh 1969 (1) SCC 386. The existence of joint Hindu Family property is not disputed any where either in the testimony of the PW-1 nor DW-1. Plaintiff being born on 03.12.1991 prima facie became a CS DJ No.129/2017 Swapnil Jain v. Sanjay Jain & Ors. Page No.30 / 47 co-parcener- much before the execution of relinquishment deeds and division of HUF properties. In view of the law laid down above, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 56 - Full Document
1