Whether Partition of Joint Family Property can be proved by Entries in Revenue Record

Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Whether partition of joint family property can be proved by entries in revenue record?

 The Tribunals below did not advert to the entries in the Record of Rights or to the factum of partition, while the High Court has taken this factor into consideration, which in our considered view had rightly been taken into account. The entries in the Record of Rights regarding the factum of partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence given, by the respondent and his brother to prove the factum of partition. Even in the evidence of Ram Chander, he clearly stated that there was a partition but he could not give the date and year in which the partition was effected nor the deed of the partition was produced. Under the Hindu Law, it is not necessary that the partition should be effected by a registered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate the partition between coparceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof. Under those circumstances, when the factum of partition was evidenced by entries in the Record of Rights, which was maintained in official course of business, the correctness thereof was not questioned, it corroborates the oral evidence given by the brother and lends assurance to accept it.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2653 of 1972

Decided On: 21.02.1995

Digambar Adhar Patil Vs.  Devram Girdhar Patil (Died) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1728

1. Substitution allowed.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1097 of 1968 dated April 26, 1972. The respondents filed an application under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (for short, 'the Act') to determine the price payable to the appellant to purchase 8 acres 26 guntas of land which was admittedly in his possession as a tenant. The Tribunal below under the Act found that the respondent No. 1 was is possession of 54 acres of land. In other words, in excess of 48 acres, which in the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. Therefore, he was not entitled to purchase the land in question from the appellant. The High Court found that the conclusion reached by the Tribunals was vitiated by personal law, namely, Hindu Law and also by evidence on record.

3. We are concerned in this case with the land held by the respondent's minor son to the extent of 7 acres 34 guntas and the land said to have been allotted to the share of his brother by name, Ram Chander, at a partition between them. The High Court has held that by operation of provisions of Section 32B of the Act, the land which the respondent held as an owner and tenant alone should be taken into consideration in determining the area of ceiling limit. The land cultivated by the respondent belonging to his minor son was not as a tenant but as a guardian of his minor son. The land allotted to his brother was evidenced by the entries in the Record of Rights and, therefore, the oral evidence coupled by those entries established that there was a partition between him and his brother Ram Chander and thereby the said land stood excluded. Even assuming that the land belonging to his minor son and cultivated by the respondent was considered to be either held as a tenant or as a member of the joint family, the total land held by the respondent was within the ceiling limit and therefore, he is entitled to purchase the land of the appellant to the extent of 8 acres 26 guntas cultivated as a tenant by the respondent under Section 32B of the Act. Accordingly, it directed the Mamlatdar to conduct the enquiry under Section 32G and remanded the matter for fixing the price. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. It is contended for the appellant that three Tribunals below, namely, Mamlatdar, appellate authority and the Land Tribunal concurrently held that the respondent was in possession of 54 acres 23 guntas. In other words, in excess of the ceiling limit. It is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. The High Court, therefore, while exercising the revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution should not have embarked upon appreciation of evidence to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal below. It is also contended that the definition of the person includes joint family and the Act does indicate that the land belonging to the minor son should be included in the holdings held by the respondent-tenant. If that land is included, it would be beyond the ceiling limit. It is also contended that the partition said to have been effected between the respondent and his brother Ram Chander was not evidenced by any documentary evidence which was claimed to be in the possession of respondent but was denied by Ram Chander. Therefore, the High Court was not right in reversing the concurrent findings recorded by the Tribunals below.

5. We find no force in the contention. Section 32B clearly postulates that the land held as an owner or as a tenant alone should be taken into consideration to determine ceiling limit and if the land held as owner or tenant is within the ceiling limit, he shall be entitled to purchase the land held by him as a tenant. Admittedly, the respondent held the land as an owner to the extent of 36 acres 1 guntas. The area of dispute is only in respect of the land held by his minor son and the land allotted at a partition to his brother Ram Chander. With regard to the land held by the son, even assuming that it is a joint family property for the purpose of the Act and it is includible in his holding yet he is within the ceiling limit, namely, 43 acres 35 guntas. As rightly held by the High Court he cultivated it on behalf of his minor son. As to the land allotted to the brother of the respondent, the Tribunals below negatived it on two grounds, namely, in the cultivation column of the Revenue records, it was shown that the respondent had cultivated the land and no documentary evidence of partition was produced before the authorities. The Tribunals below did not advert to the entries in the Record of Rights or to the factum of partition, while the High Court has taken this factor into consideration, which in our considered view had rightly been taken into account. The entries in the Record of Rights regarding the factum of partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence given, by the respondent and his brother to prove the factum of partition. Even in the evidence of Ram Chander, he clearly stated that there was a partition but he could not give the date and year in which the partition was effected nor the deed of the partition was produced. Under the Hindu Law, it is not necessary that the partition should be effected by a registered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate the partition between coparceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof. Under those circumstances, when the factum of partition was evidenced by entries in the Record of Rights, which was maintained in official course of business, the correctness thereof was not questioned, it corroborates the oral evidence given by the brother and lends assurance to accept it.

6. The High Court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the land allotted to the brother of the respondent, namely, Ram Chander should be excluded. If that land is excluded necessary conclusion is that the respondent was within the ceiling limit. Consequently he is entitled to purchase the land of the appellant who is the owner under the provisions of the Act as he is a deemed tenant on the tiller date under Section 32 of the Act. Whether the respondent is in excess of the land or not would be considered while computing the holding as ordered by the High Court in its remand order. The appeal, therefore, does not warrant interference. It is accordingly dismissed.

Daughters Have Equal Rights In Ancestral Property, Even If They Were Born Before Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, Holds Supreme Court

Daughters Have Equal Rights In Ancestral Property, Even If They Were Born Before Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, Holds Supreme Court [Read Judgment] Feb 4th 2018, 09:07, by Sukriti Manu Sebastian The Supreme Court has held that daughters who were born before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956 are entitled to equal shares as son in ancestral property.  The ruling was rendered in an appeal filed by daughters challenging a decree in a partition suit, which excluded them from partition.  The partition suit was filed by the grandson of the deceased propositus of a joint family in 2002. The Trial Court held that daughters were not entitled to share in property, as they were born before 1956, the year of enactment of Hindu Succession Act. The Trail Court also denied them the benefit of 2005 amendment, which conferred equal coparcenary status to daughters as sons.  The High Court upheld the decree of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court held that the Courts below erred in holding that daughters were not entitled to partition because they were born before 1956. It was held that according to Section 6 of the Act ,when a coparcener dies leaving behind any female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Act(which includes a daughter), his undivided interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary property would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener by survivorship but upon his heirs by intestate succession.  Therefore, the interest of the deceased coparcener would devolve by intestate succession on his heirs, which included his daughters. The Court also held that the daughters were entitled to the benefit of 2005 amendment as well, and on that basis also they were entitled to shares.  It was settled in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 rights under the amendment area available to daughters living on the date of amendment, irrespective of when they were born.  In the instant case, the bench comprising Justice A.K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan explained it further, and stated that the amendment declared that a daughter ‘shall by birth’  became coparcener in her own right in the same manner as son. Hence, the daughter will get coparcenary right by virtue of the amendment, ‘since birth’. It was observed as follows :- Section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. It is apparent that the status conferred upon sons under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to treat them as coparceners since birth. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth. The section uses the words in the same manner as the son. It should therefore be apparent that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth. It is the very factum of birth in a coparcenary that creates the coparcenary, therefore the sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth. Devolution of coparcenary property is the later stage of and a consequence of death of a coparcener. The first stage of a coparcenary is obviously its creation as explained above, and as is well recognized. Also, the fact that the partition suit was filed in 2002 was held to be inconsequential. The Court stated that so far as partition suits are concerned, the partition becomes final only on the passing of a final decree. The decree was passed in 2007. Here, the rights of the daughters got crystallised in 2005, and hence the Trial Court ought to have taken into account that aspect while passing decree in 2007. The Court also observed that 2005 amendment was brought in on the touchstone of equality, thus seeking to remove the perceived disability and prejudice to which a daughter was subjected. The fundamental changes brought forward about in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by amending it in 2005, are perhaps a realization of the immortal words of Roscoe Pound as appearing in his celebrated treaties, The Ideal Element in Law, that “the law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still. Hence all thinking about law has struggled to reconcile the conflicting demands of the need of stability and the need of change.- the Bench observed. Hence, it was held that shares will devolve on the daughters as well. Read the Judgment Here

All HUF Assets Should Be Taken As Joint Property Unless Proven Otherwise: SC

All HUF Assets Should Be Taken As Joint Property Unless Proven Otherwise: SC [Read Judgment] Sep 15th 2017, 04:32, by Sukriti The Supreme Court recently reiterated the principle that all assets in a Hindu Undivided Family would be presumed to be joint property belonging to all its members and that the burden to prove otherwise is on the family member asserting such claim. “It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden, therefore, lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property,” the Bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre observed. The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging an order passed by the Karnataka High Court in a family dispute pertaining to ownership and partition of agricultural lands. The Apex Court upheld the High Court’s order which had declared the property as joint property of the family. The Court opined that the Appellants had failed to prove that the property was self acquired and observed, “In order to prove that the suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ were their self-acquired properties, the plaintiffs could have adduced the best evidence in the form of a sale-deed showing their names as purchasers of the said properties and also could have adduced evidence of payment of sale consideration made by them to the vendee. It was, however, not done. Not only that, the plaintiffs also failed to adduce any other kind of documentary evidence to prove their self-acquisition of the Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties nor they were able to prove the source of its acquisition.” It, therefore, upheld the judgments passed by the lower Courts and observed, “In our considered opinion, it was, therefore, obligatory upon the plaintiffs to have proved that despite existence of jointness in the family, properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ was not part of ancestral properties but were their self-acquired properties. As held above, the plaintiffs failed to prove this material fact for want of any evidence. We have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the concurrent findings of the two Courts, which in our opinion, are based on proper appreciation of oral evidence.” Read the Judgment Here