LexD.S. LAKSHMAIAH AND ANR. versus L. BALASUBRAMANYAM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J D.S. LAKSHMAIAH AND ANR. A v. L. BALASUBRAMANY AM AND ANR. AUGUST 27, 2003 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.) B Hindu Law: Husband sold certain properties-Declaratory suit jointly filed by the wife and her son against husband for their share in the properties/joint c family properties-Trial Court decreed the suit-Reversed by the first appellate Court holding certain part of the property as self acquired by the husband and the rffspondents-wife/son having failed to prove that the properties wer.:! purchased from nucleus of joint family property -On appeal, High Court restored the order of the trial Court holding the D property as joint family property-Blending of property-Burden to prove- Held: since no evidence of nucleus as to purchase of the property from the joint family having been led by the wife and son, the presumption that the property being joint family could not be drawn-In the absence of clear .,., intention of abandonment of right of ownership by the husband/blending of self-acquired property into joint family property, abandonment of such E right/blending the property into joint family account could not be infe"ed from mere use of the property by other members-Hence, the property cannot be held to be joint family property-Interpretation of Statutes. Words and Phrases: F 'nucleus', 'blending of -Meaning of in the context of Hindu Law, joint family property. Appellant No.I-husband sold a portion of certain property in favour of appellant No.2. The respondents-wife and son filed a G declaratory suit for 2/3rd share and possession thereof claiming the same to be joint family property. Trial Court decreed the suit On appeal, the first appellate Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondents had failed to prove that the property in question was joint family property and not self acquired property. On appeal, High H 1• > 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Court restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence the present appeal. The main issue that arose in the appeal was as to whether the property transferred by appellant No.I in favour of appellant No.2 was B self acquired property or joint Hindu family property, in which respondent had 2/3rd share. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. In the present case, onus remained on the respondents C and since they have failed to adduce evidence of nucleus of the property, it could not lead to any presumption of the property being "joint family property. (21-EJ Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti & Ors., AIR (1947) PC 189; D Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango & Ors., AIR (1954) SC 379; Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh, (1969) l SCC 386; Baikuntha Nath Paramanik (dead) by His L.Rs. & Heirs v. Sashi Bhusan Pramanik (dead) by his Lrs. & Ors., (1973) 2 SCC 334; and Surendra Kumar v. Phoo/chand (dead) through Lrs. & E Anr., (1996) 2 sec 491, relied on. Mal/esappa Bandeppa Desai & Anr. v. Desai Mallappa alias Maliesappa & Anr., AIR (1961) SC. 1268; Achuthan Nair v. Chinnammu Amma & Ors., AIR (1966) SC 411 and Malappa Girimallappa Detgeri F & Ors. v. R. Yellappagouda Patil & Ors., AIR (1959) SC 906, distinguished. 1.2. The legal principle 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 G 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 H joint family nucleus that was available. (22-C-D) ' ' D.S. LAKSHMAIAH v. L. BALASUBRAMANY AM 15 1.3. The law on the aspect of blending is well settled that property A separate or self-acquired of a member of joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be B established. From the mere fact that other members of the family were allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.