BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR. LRS. versus PURUSHOTTAM & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 10 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 03-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 579
579
BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR. LRS.)
v.
PURUSHOTTAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6875 of 2008)
APRIL 03, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Hindu Law – Property of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) –
Burden to prove – Person had four sons – 2 sons severed and had
no connection with property of the family – Two branches left in the
family – Suit filed by descendant of one of the son for partition of
plaint properties claiming them to be of HUF – Decreed by trial
court – Set aside by High Court – On appeal, held: Not only jointness
of the family has to be proved but also that the property belongs to
the joint Hindu family – Merely because the business is joint would
not raise the presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family – Burden
is on the person alleging that the property is a joint property of an
HUF to prove the same – Plaintiff failed to prove that there is an
HUF – Doctrines.
Evidence – Admission – Held: An admission made by a party
is only a piece of evidence and not conclusive proof of what is
stated therein.
Estoppel – Doctrine of election – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The burden is on the person alleging that the
property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same. Normally,
an HUF can only comprise of all the family members with the
head of the family being karta. Some property has to be the
nucleus for this joint family. There is no pleading that ‘MR’ and
Sons (‘MP’, ‘LC’, ‘RC’ and ‘UL’) constituted a HUF. There is
no allegation that this family had some property as its nucleus. It
is the admitted case of the parties that both ‘RC’ and ‘LC’ severed
connections with the family and had no connection with the
property of the family. There is cleavage of opinion as to whether
two brothers of a larger group can form a joint family. But
assuming that such a joint family could have been formed by ‘MP’
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
and ‘UL’, the burden lies heavily on the plaintiff to prove that the
two of them joined together to form an HUF. To prove this, they
will have to not only show jointness of the property but also
jointness of family and jointness of living together. Since there is
no allegation that ‘MR’ and his four sons constituted a HUF, the
fact that ‘LC’ left the family to live by himself, would not in any
manner mean that there was a disruption of the joint family status.
A disruption would arise only if there was an allegation that earlier
there was a HUF.  [Paras 1, 10-12][586-H; 588-D-G]
1.2 The plaintiff is the grandson of ‘UL’. The parties are ad
idem that ‘MP’ shifted from his native village and came to Ashok
Nagar, about 70 years prior to the filing of the suit. It is also an
admitted case of the parties that ‘MP’ and ‘UL’ came separately
to Ashok Nagar. ‘MP’ initially worked as a munshi with a zamindar.
Thereafter, as per the defendants, ‘MP’ started a business which
was his own but later his brother ‘UL’ joined in the business. It
is, however, contended that this business was not a business of a
HUF. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff is that it was
‘UL’ who started the business and ‘MP’ joined him later on but
since ‘MP’ was the elder brother, the business was started in the
name of ‘MP’. There is no evidence to support the claim either
way. The plaintiff places great reliance on the mortgage deed by
which 5 houses were mortgaged on 01.12.1944 and 26.11.1946.
It is not disputed that there were 6 houses, some single storeyed
and some double storeyed in Ashok Nagar which have been
described in the plaint. There is no material on record to show
that the properties belonged to an HUF. They may have been
joint properties but merely on the basis of the recitals in the
mortgage deed they cannot be said to be a joint family property.
[Paras 2, 13-16][583-H; 588-G; 590-A-B]
2. An admission made by a party is only a piece of evidence
and not conclusive proof of what is stated therein. Not only
jointness of the family has to be proved but burden lies upon the
person alleging existence of a joint family to prove that the
property belongs to the joint Hindu family unless there is material
on record to show that the property is the nucleus of the joint
Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out
of this nucleus. This has not been proved in the present case.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
581
Merely because the business is joint would not raise the
presumption that there is a Joint Hin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.