9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of joint family status, ownership of suit property, consideration of joint family business, validity of sale deed, rights of the parties.
Ownership of Suit Property: The plaintiffs claimed a 2/3rd share in the suit property, alleging it was purchased from joint family funds. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, decreeing the suit. The defendants contended that the property was self-acquired by defendant No. 2 and had no joint family connection. The appeal against the trial court's decision was dismissed, leading to this second appeal. Joint Family Status: The question arose whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 constituted a joint Hindu family. Despite the absence of the father, it was argued that the mother and two sons could form a joint family. The court found that even in the father's absence, the remaining members could constitute a joint Hindu family, especially since the father had not formally separated from the family. Joint Family Business: Evidence suggested that the property was acquired from the earnings of a joint family business run by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2. The defendants admitted in a previous suit that the shop was a joint family business. The court concluded that the property was jointly acquired, and each member had an equal share in it. The appellant's lack of good faith in the purchase further supported this finding. Validity of Sale Deed: The court dismissed the appellant's claim of being a bona fide purchaser due to lack of good faith and knowledge of the property's ownership status. While the property was not deemed joint family property, it was confirmed as jointly acquired property, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the lower court's judgment and decree.
|
