Hindu Undivided Family




Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 6875 of 2008 titled Bhagwat Sharan v/s Purushottam & ors dated 
dated 03.04.2020 has relied upon the following judgment on HUF

1. Bhagwan Dayal vs. Reoti Devi AIR 1962 SC 287

“In this case this Court held that the general principle is that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. It was further held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it was also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.”
2. Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Ors. V/s Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and Ors. (1951) 2 SCR 603, it held as follows:-

“…. Except in the case of reunion, the mere fact that separated coparceners chose to live together or act jointly for purposes of business or trade or in their dealings with properties, would not give them the status of coparceners under the Mitakshara law.”

 3. The Privy Council in Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440 held as follows:

"The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone 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 formed 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”

4 D.S. Lakshmaiah and Ors. V/s. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 310this Court held as follows:
“The legal principle, therefore, 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 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 joint family nucleus that was available.”
Similar view was taken in Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Others. (1960) 2 SCR 253 and Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade(2007) 1 SCC 521

The law is thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Articles

Image
As  Home News Columns Dealstreet Interviews Apprentice Lawyer Viewpoint Legal Jobs Vikram Hegde, Shantanu Lakhotia COLUMNS Transfer Petitions and video conferencing: Time for another look at Santhini? Unless the courts contemplate complete stoppage of work till free travel without risk of being infected becomes possible, video conference hearings are inevitable. Vikram Hegde   &  Shantanu Lakhotia Jul 1, 2020, 10:05 AM IST As lawyers, we are already grappling with what we may call  video conference vagaries  since the beginning of the lockdown. At the same time, we are all aware that sooner rather than later, litigants will also have to start appearing in courts by video conference. The story of the interface of a litigant with the court being mediated by a video link starts with the amendment of Section 167(2)(b) of the CrPC, which provides, among other things, that a magistrate may extend the detention of an accused in judicial custody. Such extension...
Read more