Mere existence of nucleus alone is not enough and it must be proved that there was surplus income for purchase of other properties and the same must be in the hands of managing member
Citation
CDJ 1999 MHC 1033
1999 (2) L.W. 713,
Head note
Hindu Succession Act – Partition – Plaintiff filed suit for partition, in which the Trial Court passed preliminary decree in respect of some of items scheduled to plaint -
Court Held – Evidence of witnesses shows that grocery shop business and brick kiln business are all run by manager of family alone and none of family members participated in those business – Oral evidence adduced by Plaintiff goes against Plaintiffs case – No evidence has been let in regarding income from property – Finding of the lower Court that Items 5 and 6 are rut available for partition is to be confirmed – No evidence has been let in to show that any family nucleus is used for purchase of Ex. B-7 property – Manager of family is residing separately after purchasing property – No evidence to show that any family asset is utilised for purchase of said item – Regarding movables, no evidence has been let in by Plaintiff to show that all items are available – Decisions of the lower Court regarding movables is only to be confirmed – Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 31, 33, 34, 35, 38)
Cases Referred:
Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law, Vol 1 (17th Edition/1988) Page 344;
67 L.W. 513 = AIR 1954 S.C. 379;
60 L.W. 412 = AIR 1947 P.C. 189;
AIR 1959 S.C. 906;
AIR 1961 S.C. 1268;
1964(1)S.C.W.R. 856;
AIR 1969 S.C. 1076;
AIR 1972 S.C. 2531;
1996 (2) S.C.C. 492;
(1956) 69 L.W. 795 = AIR 1957 Mad. 86;
1975 (II) M.LJ. 184 = 88 L.W. 63 S.N; and
66 L.W. 298 = AIR 1953 Mad 723
Comparative Citation:
1999 (2) LW 713,
Court Held – Evidence of witnesses shows that grocery shop business and brick kiln business are all run by manager of family alone and none of family members participated in those business – Oral evidence adduced by Plaintiff goes against Plaintiffs case – No evidence has been let in regarding income from property – Finding of the lower Court that Items 5 and 6 are rut available for partition is to be confirmed – No evidence has been let in to show that any family nucleus is used for purchase of Ex. B-7 property – Manager of family is residing separately after purchasing property – No evidence to show that any family asset is utilised for purchase of said item – Regarding movables, no evidence has been let in by Plaintiff to show that all items are available – Decisions of the lower Court regarding movables is only to be confirmed – Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 31, 33, 34, 35, 38)
Cases Referred:
Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law, Vol 1 (17th Edition/1988) Page 344;
67 L.W. 513 = AIR 1954 S.C. 379;
60 L.W. 412 = AIR 1947 P.C. 189;
AIR 1959 S.C. 906;
AIR 1961 S.C. 1268;
1964(1)S.C.W.R. 856;
AIR 1969 S.C. 1076;
AIR 1972 S.C. 2531;
1996 (2) S.C.C. 492;
(1956) 69 L.W. 795 = AIR 1957 Mad. 86;
1975 (II) M.LJ. 184 = 88 L.W. 63 S.N; and
66 L.W. 298 = AIR 1953 Mad 723
Comparative Citation:
1999 (2) LW 713,
it is held that mere existence of nucleus alone is not enough and it must be proved that there was surplus income for purchase of other properties and the same must be in the hands of managing member
#partition
#jointfamily
#blending
#nucleus
#seperateproperty
Comments
Post a Comment