SURENDRA KUMAR versus PHOOLCHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 02-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SURENDRA JS:UMAR 
v. 
PHOOLCHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section ](}-Reference-Apportionment of 
compensation-Dispute as to whether property acquired is joint J amity proper-
A 
B 
ty or self acquired-Reference Court empowered to decide--Concw;ent finding C 
that property was joint f amity property-Upheld. 
Hindu Law-Joint Family Property-Presumption of Where family pos-
sessed joint prope1ty--Burden shifts to party alleging self acquisition that 
property was acquired without aid of joint property. 
D 
A property purchased in the year 1971 in the name of appellant by 
his grand father as guardian was acquired for an industrial area. An 
award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed and compen-
sation was granted to the appellant. Subsequent to the passing of the 
award, the respondents claimed that the property was joint family property 
as it was purchased in the name of the appellant out of the funds of the E 
joint family and they were entitled to share in it. Dispute having arisen to 
the apportionment of the compensation, the matter was referred for the 
decision of the court u/s 30 of the Act. The Additional Distrkt Judge 
directed that the appellant as well as the respondents would be entitled for 
1/3 share each in the compensation about while holding that the property F 
acquired was the joint family property as the consideration money for 
purchasing the property had been paid by appellants grandfather from out 
of the Joint Hindu Family funds and the partition suit having been filed 
in the year 1953 and the property in dispute having been purchased only 
in the year 1961, its non-inclusion in the suit for partition was not fatal to G 
the claim filed by the respondents and Order II Rule 2 CPC had no 
application. In appeal, the High Court affirmed the findings and held that 
it was the joint family property and had been purchased by the ap11ellants' 
grand father, the manager of the joint family property in the name of the 
appellant. This appeal had been filed against the judgment of the High 
Court. 
H 
15 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant argued that 
1though the sale deed was executed in the 
year 1961, the property was in possession of his grand father since 1951 
and even though the respondents knew about the same the property was 
not included in the earlier partition suit filed in the year 1953, the present 
claim was mere after thought and rejection of the case of the appellant 
B that the consideration money was paid by maternal grand father was 
wholly unsustainable in law and was merely arbitrary. 
The respondent contended that two courts below having recorded 
that the finding that the property was the joint family property, it would 
not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the same particularly 
C when no question of law arises in this regard and that the earlier suit filed 
by one of the respondents being in the year 1953 and at that time the 
property not having been purchased, the courts below rightly held that the 
non- inclusion could not be held to be fatal to the present suit. 
The questions raised for consideration were (i) whether non-in-
D cl us ion of the property in the earlier partition suit will in any way affect the 
present proceedings by application of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. and (ii) 
whether the findings of the two courts below on the question that the 
property was a joint family property could at all be interfered by this Court. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. The sale deed in the name of the appellant was executed 
in the year 1961 and the suit for partition of the joint family property had 
been filed in the year 1953, the said property could not'have been included 
in the partition suit and therefore non-inclusion of the property was not 
fatal to the present proceedings. That the property having been acquired 
and an award had been passed, any claim in respect of the said compen-
sation amount could only be made . by raising a dispute before the land 
acquisition authority. In a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act the Court was fully justified in deciding the question as to whether 
G the property is joint family property or is the self-acquired property of the 
appellant. The provisions of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. has no application. 
[20-G, 27-B, D] 
1.2. The agreement for sale was 

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