Summary
In a family partition suit over agricultural lands in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's second-appeal judgment. The plaintiff had proved income-yielding ancestral property and acquisitions made while the family was joint, so the burden shifted to the appellant to prove self-acquisition, which he failed to do. Sales by the karta without proved legal necessity, and an unregistered Will made in suspicious circumstances, did not defeat the partition.
Issues
- Whether the suit properties were joint Hindu family properties or self-acquisitions of the karta or the appellant.
- Whether there had been any prior partition or severance of joint status.
- Whether sales by the karta in favour of one coparcener, and sales made as guardian of minor members of a collateral branch, bound the other coparceners.
- Whether the unregistered Will executed shortly before the karta's death was proved and could be reopened.
- Whether impleadment of alleged heirs of a deceased coparcener at a late stage was rightly refused.
Held
- Proof that a joint family exists does not by itself make all property joint. But once income-yielding ancestral property is shown and acquisitions are made while the family is joint, the burden shifts to the person claiming self-acquisition. Other coparceners need not trace the exact source of funds for each acquisition made in the karta's name. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Revenue records showing cultivation, wells and pump sets supported the finding that the admittedly ancestral items yielded income. The karta's other earnings did not by themselves rebut the joint-family character of the acquisitions. The appellant's claim to have funded purchases while still a student was rightly rejected on the evidence. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Separate enjoyment of portions, installation of irrigation facilities or individual borrowings do not prove partition. A clear and unequivocal intention to sever joint status is required, and here the conveyances described undivided shares and there was no mutation showing division. (¶ 32)
- Sales by a karta in favour of one coparcener bind the others only if legal necessity is proved; vague or general recitals are not enough. The courts below rightly examined each item and upheld only the sales for which necessity was established, while preserving the appellant's right to prove actual medical expenses in final decree proceedings. (¶ 33)
- The sale made by the karta as guardian of a deceased brother's minor children was rightly not upheld, given the inconsistencies found in the surrounding circumstances, recitals and endorsements. (¶ 34)
- The Will was rightly treated as suspicious: the testator usually signed but this document bore only a thumb impression; it was made about 72 hours before death; it was scribed by a close relative; and the scribe's presence was doubtful. Its rejection had also not been challenged at the proper stage and had become final, so the appellant could not approbate and reprobate. (¶ 35)
- Refusal to implead alleged heirs of a deceased coparcener was proper: there was no evidence of collusion, his share was already represented, and late impleadment would unsettle proceedings that had become final. (¶ 36)
- Except for the limited exclusions the High Court had already granted for properties bought from third parties, no ground was made out to take a different view. (¶¶ 37, 38)
Result
Civil appeals dismissed, with no order as to costs; High Court judgment, including its limited exclusions from partition, affirmed.