Family Law

Kesharbai v. Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade

(2014) 4 SCC 707

Facts

Members of an extended Hindu family claimed rights in several agricultural lands and houses.
A family arrangement and partition had taken place on 22 April 1985.
Following it:
the members entered into possession of their allotted properties;
mutation entries were made;
no objections were raised;
some members sold property allotted to them as their exclusive property.
A later dispute concerned a house at Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad, standing in Eknathrao’s name.
Prabhakarrao’s wife and children claimed that:
it had been purchased using joint-family funds;
Eknathrao held it for the family.
Eknathrao’s branch claimed that it was his self-acquired property.
The Trial Court accepted the earlier partition and held the house self-acquired.
The High Court reversed this part of the decision, reasoning that Eknathrao’s heirs had not proved his independent income.

Who bore the burden of proving whether the Nageshwarwadi house was joint-family or self-acquired property?
What presumption arises after a complete partition has been proved and acted upon?

The mere existence of a joint Hindu family does not create a presumption that every property held by a family member is joint property.
The person asserting joint-family ownership must initially prove:
existence of a joint-family nucleus;
sufficient income from that nucleus;
a connection between those funds and acquisition of the property.
Once such a sufficient nucleus is established, the burden may shift to the person claiming self-acquisition.
Where a complete partition has been proved or admitted, the normal presumption is that all joint properties were included and divided.
A person alleging that a property was omitted from the partition as continuing joint property must prove that assertion.
A family arrangement acted upon through possession and subsequent dealings is strongly binding.

The High Court accepted that the 1985 arrangement was a complete and final partition.
The parties had:
received notices concerning mutation;
raised no objection;
occupied their shares;
sold allotted land without consulting other branches.
Their conduct showed that they treated the partition as final.
Once this was accepted, the High Court could not simultaneously presume that the Nageshwarwadi house remained joint.
The plaintiffs offered little beyond their assertion that the older generation purchased the property in Eknathrao’s name.
There was no convincing evidence tracing:
joint-family income;
sale proceeds;
or common funds to the purchase.
Other joint properties had been acquired in the names of Deorao or Saluba, not exclusively in Eknathrao’s name.
Eknathrao had lived in the disputed house, whereas another branch lived in rented accommodation.
The evidence also suggested that Eknathrao had independent employment.
The High Court incorrectly placed the entire burden upon his heirs to prove self-acquisition without the plaintiffs first establishing a joint-family source.
Its presumption was also inconsistent with the completed partition.

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s finding.
The Nageshwarwadi house was Eknathrao’s self-acquired property.
The plaintiffs had not proved that it was purchased from joint-family funds.
Use this case for: burden of proof regarding joint-family property and the presumption arising from a completed partition.