The Supreme Court has observed that the person who is claiming that a property is a joint property of Hindu Undivided Family, the burden to prove so lies on him.
Brief Facts
In a case between Bhagwat Sharan vs. Purushottam is a suit filed for partition, Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Gupta has observed that proving the jointness of a family is not sufficient, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims the property to be a part of Hindu Undivided Family, or else there shall be any record evidence that this particular property is the nucleus of the joint family. After observing the plea the court didn’t has not found the family to be constituted as a Hindu Undivided Family neither a property with the nucleus. The court has taken a reference of a previous case D.S. Lakshmaiah and ors. Vs. L. Balasubramanyam and ors and referred to the following observation “The legal principle therefore, 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 prove 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 self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available”[i]. The Court held that the case lacks material evidence on the record to show that the property belongs to the Hindu Undivided Family, and merely because there were joint business would not stand that it is a Joint Hindu Family.
Key Features
1. In a partition suit between Bhagwat Sharan Vs. Purushottam, the Supreme Court made an observation that the person who alleges the property to be a part of Hindu undivided Family, he/she shall hold the burden to prove so.
2. Reference was taken from a previous Supreme Court case D.S. Lakshmaiah and ors. Vs. L. Balasubramanyam and ors.
3. The Court held that the case lacks material evidence on the record to show that the property belongs to the Hindu Undivided Family.
Conclusion
Any person who is of the belief about something bears the burden to prove that, the same is applicable to a person if they allege that any property is part of the Hindu Undivided Family.
Edited by J. Madonna Jephi
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
End Notes
[i] Livelaw News Network, Burden To Prove That The Property Is A Joint Property Of An HUF Is On The Person Who Asserts So: SC [Read Judgment] Live Law (2020), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/joint-family-huf-burden-of-proof-154791 (last visited Apr 5, 2020).
