Tip: Use graphics to set the
tone of the speech.
FAMILY LAW II
CASE LAWS
V.D. Dhanwatey v. CIT
AIR 1968 SC 683
What is joint family property?
The general doctrine of Hindu law is that property acquired by a karta or a
coparcener with the aid or assistance of joint family assets is impressed with
the character of joint family property.
To put it differently, it is an essential feature of self-acquired property that it
should have been acquired without assistance or aid of the joint family
property. The test of self-acquisition by the karta or coparcener is that it
should be without detriment to the ancestral estate.
It is therefore clear that before an acquisition can be claimed to be a
separate property, it must be shown that it was made without any aid or
assistance from the ancestral or joint family property.”
Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango
AIR 1954 SC 379
Merely because there is a joint family, there is no presumption that
property posessed by it’s members is joint family property
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.
Satrughan Isser v. Sabujpari
AIR 1967 SC 272
A Hindu coparcenary under the Mitakshara school consists of males alone;
it includes only those members who acquire by birth or adoption interest in
the coparcenary property. The essence of coparcenary property is unity of
ownership which is vested in the whole body of coparceners.
While it remains joint, no individual member can predicate of the undivided
property that he has a definite share therein. The interest of each
coparcener is fluctuating, capable of being enlarged by deaths, and liable
to be diminished by the birth of sons to coparceners; it is only on partition
that the coparcener can claim that he has become entitled to a definite
share.
Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama
AIR 1963 SC 1601
What is blending/ thrown into common stock?
Law relating to blending of separate property with joint family property is well-
settled. Property separate or self-acquired of a member of joint Hindu family may
be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by
the owner into the common stock wit the intention of abandoning his separate
claim therein: but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive
separate rights must be established.
From the mere fact that other member of the family were allowed to use the
property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate property was
utilised out of generosity to support persons whom the holder was no bound to
support, or from the failure to maintain separate accounts abandonment cannot
be inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness will not ordinarily be regarded as
an admission of a legal obligation.
M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami
AIR 1966 SC 470
What is the remedy of a purchaser of undivided interest of a
coparcener?
It is well settled that the purchaser of a coparcerner’s
undivided interest in joint family property is not entitled to
possession of what he has purchased.
His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for
allotment to him of that which on partition might be found
to fall to the share of the coparcener whose share he had
purchased.
His right to possession “would date from the period when a
specific allotment was made in his favour.
Raghavamma v. Chenchamma
A Hindu joint family consists of two brothers B1¸ and B2¸. B2, predeceased
B1 leaving behind his widow B2W (Raghavamma/Plaintiff/Appellant).
The only son of B1, B1S also predeceased B1, leaving behind his widow
B1SW (Chenchamma/defendant/respondent) and his minor son B1SS
(Subbarao).
So ultimately the coparcenary consisted of B1 and B1SS. In 1945, B1 died
and therefore B1SS became the sole surviving coparcener. B1SS died in
1949 without attaining majority.
Raghavamma v. Chenchamma
The evolution of the doctrine severance of joint status can be studied in
two parts, namely,
(a) The declaration of the intention; and
(b) Communication of it to others affected thereby.
It is implicit in the concept of ‘declaration’ that it should be brought to the
knowledge of the persons affected thereby. One cannot declare or
manifest his mental state in a vacuum. To declare is to make known, to
assert to others.
“Others” must necessarily be those affected by the said declaration. It
means the manifested intention must be “clearly intimated” to the other
coparceners.
Raghavamma v. Chenchamma
If a coparcener did not communicate, during his lifetime, his intention to
become divided to other coparceners, the mere declaration of his
intention, though expressed or manifested, did not affects a severance in
status.
An uncommunicated declaration is no better than a mere formation or
harbouring of an intention to separate. It becomes effective as a
declaration only after its communication to the person or persons who
would be affected thereby.
Therefore, a member of a joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself
from others will have to make known his intention to other members of the
family from whom he seeks to separate.
