| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | Abhay Manohar Sapre J, R. K. Agrawal J |
| SECTION(S): | HUF Law |
| GENRE: | Other Laws |
| CATCH WORDS: | HUF |
| COUNSEL: | Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Kiran Suri |
| DATE: | September 6, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 9, 2017 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| HUF Law: It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property | |
(i) It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden, therefore, lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property. (See-Mulla – Hindu Law, 22nd Edition Article 23 “Presumption as to co-parcenary and self acquired property”- pages 346 and 347).
(ii) In our considered opinion, the legal presumption of the suit properties comprising in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ to be also the part and parcel of the ancestral one (Schedule ‘D’) could easily be drawn for want of any evidence of such properties being self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs. It was also for the reason that the plaintiffs themselves had based their case by admitting the existence of joint family nucleolus in respect of schedule ‘D’ properties and had sought partition by demanding 4/9th share.
(iii) In our considered opinion, it was, therefore, obligatory upon the plaintiffs to have proved that despite existence of jointness in the family, properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ was not part of ancestral properties but were their self-acquired properties. As held above, the plaintiffs failed to prove this material fact for want of any evidence.
IMPROMPTU
In the Editor’s summation of ‘Related Judgments’ has been included – http://itatonline.org/archives/hill-properties-ltd-vs-union-bank-supreme-court-occupancy-rights-in-flat-conferred-by-articles-of-association-confer-ownership-rights-in-flat-restriction-on-transferability-in-articles-of-association/
In one’s perspective,it is unclear why and how that Judgment has been classified as a Related Judgment; for, so far as seen,that was not a case where the point of issue had anything to do with the concept of ‘HUF’, much less the factual matrix or issue as covered and settled in the now reported Adiveppa’s case.
Incidentally,the viewpoints as shared wrt the SC Judgment in Hill Properties case might be worth having a fresh look through for, inter alia, two additional reasons:
1. The added / amplified related implications of the lately coming into force of the Central ‘RERA’, and the respectively framed Rules, of the Centre and the states; which have lately been the subject matter of grave controversies and heated debates, of an unprecedented magnitude, in professional and other circles.
2. The now added complications having relevance and hence requiring to be borne in mind in the matter of drafting and execution of a ‘will’ in respect of an estate, which includes the type of immovable property as earlier governed by the special state laws,now also within the purview of the RERA and the Rules there under.
For a glimpse thereof, if so have concerns and be interested, may look up the material covered in recent Posts on the websites, etc.,- say, on the popular websites of ‘Citizenmatters’ and ‘Moneylife’.