THE SHRINIVAS KRISHNARAO KANGO versus NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO AND OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 23-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
---
.+-
) 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SHRINIV AS KRISHNARAO KANGO 
ti. 
NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO AND_ OTHERS. 
[B. K. MuKERJEA, GHULAM HASAN and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
' j 
l 
Hindu law-Joint family-Whether 
there is presumption that 
property held by any member thereof is joint-Existence of some 
nucleus-Burden of proving self-acquisition-Property in 
possession 
of a family 
from 
time immemorial-Presumption whether it is 
ancestral-Adoption-Rights acquired by adoptive son· relating back 
to date of death of 
adoptive fathe1·-Doctrine of relation back-
W hether applicable to estate of a collateral. 
· 
It is well-settled that proof of the existence of a Hindu joint 
family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any 
member of the family is joint and the burden rests upon any one 
asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. 
But where it is established that the family 
possessed 
some joint 
property which from its nature and relative value may have form-
ed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been 
acquired the burden shifts to the party 
alleging self-acquisition to 
establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without 
the 
aid of the joint family property. 
Held, that on the facts 
the nucleus was not sufficient to 
discharge the initial burden which lay on the plaintiff of proving 
that the acquisitions were made with the aid of joint family pro-
perties. 
Held, further, that even if the burden shifted on the defend-
ants of establishing self acquisitions that had been 
discharged by 
proof and the ancestral 
lands were intact and the income derived 
therefrom must 
have 
been utilized for the maintenance 
of the 
members of the family. 
While it is not unusual for a family to hold properties for 
generations without a title deed, an acquisition by a member would 
ordinarily be evidenced by a deed. When, therefore, a property is 
found to have been in the possession of a family from time imme-
morial, it is not unreasonable to presume that it is ancestral 
and 
to 
throw the 
burden on the party pleading self-acquisition to 
establish it. 
On adoption by the Hindu widow, the adopted son acquires all 
the rights of an aurasa son and those rights relate back to the date 
of the death of the adoptive father. 
The ground on which an adopted son is _ held entitled to take 
in defeasance of the rights acquired prior to his adoption is that in 
195+ 
March 23. 
1954 
Shrinivas 
Krislmarao 
Kango 
v. 
N 61a)an Devji 
Kango IJlid Others. 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
the eye of law his adoption relates back, by a legal fiction, to the 
date of the death of his adoptive father, he being put in the posi-
tion of a posthumous son. 
These principles, however, apply only when the claim of the 
adopted son 
relates to the estate .of the adoptive father. 
But 
where succession to the properties of a person other than an adop-
tive father is involved the principle applicable is not the rule of 
relation· back but the rule that inheritance once vested could not 
be divested. 
T\le 
decision 
to 
the 
contrary 
in 
Anant Bhikappa 
Patil 
(Minor) v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil (70 I.A. 232) dissented from. 
Appalaswami v. 
Suryanarayanamurti 
(I.L.R. 
1948 
Mad. 440 
at 447, 448); Babubhai Girdharal v. 
Ujamlal Hargovandas (I.L.R. 
1937 Born. 708); 
Venkataramayya v. 
Seshamma 
(I.L.R. 
1937 
Madras 1012); 
Vythianatha v. Varadaraia (1.L.R. 
1938 
Madras 
696}; Pratapsing Shivsing v. Agarsingii Raisingji ( 46 I.A. 97 at 
107); Vellanki Venkata v. Venkatarama (4 I.A. 1); Verabhai v. Bhai 
Hiraba (30 I.A. 234) ; Chandra v. Gojarbai (1.L.R. 14 Born. 463) ; 
Amarendra Mansingh 
v. 
Sanatan 
Singh 
(60 I.A. 242); Bait' 
Sakharam v. Lehoo Sambhoji (l.L.R. 1937 Born. 508); 
Neelangoudo 
Limbangouda v. Ujjan Gowda (A.LR. 1948 P.C. 165; 50 Born. L.R · 
682); Bhubaneswari Debi v. Nilkomul Lahiri (12 I.A. 137) : Kally 
Prosonno Ghose v. Gocool 
Chunder Mitter (1.L.R. 2 · Cal. 293) ; 
Nilkomul Lahuri v. fotendro Mohan Lahuri (I.L.R. 7 Cal. 
178) ; 
Raghunandha v. Brozo Kishoro (3 I.A. 154); Bachoo Hurkisondas v. 
Mankorebai (34 I.A. 107) ; Vijaysingji Chhatrasingii v. Shivasangji 
Bhimasangji 
(62 
I.A. 
161); Kalidas v. Krishnachandra Das (2 
B.L.R. · 103 
F.B.) 
referred 
to 
fivaji 
Annaji 
v. 
HanmanJ 
Ramchandra (1.L.R. 1950 Bombay 510) approved. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDicTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 164 of 1952. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 
:12th

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