2013 (7) TMI 1214 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the first and second items of the suit properties were joint family properties or the exclusive properties of the first Respondent.
2. Whether the High Court misread evidence, particularly Ex.A-17, and failed to consider the legal principles of gift regarding the first item of the suit property.

Summary:

Issue 1: Joint Family Properties vs. Exclusive Properties

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming 4/5th shares in three items of properties. The Trial Court decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, holding that all three items were joint family properties. However, the High Court modified this judgment, confirming the partition only for the third item and holding that the first and second items were the exclusive properties of the first Respondent.

The first Respondent claimed the first item was gifted to him by his father and the second item was purchased using funds from his father-in-law and his wife's jewels. The Trial Court rejected these claims due to lack of evidence and contradictions in the first Respondent's statements. The High Court, however, relied on a release deed (Ex.A-3) and a partition deed (Ex.A-28) to conclude that the first and second items were the exclusive properties of the first Respondent.

Issue 2: Misreading of Evidence and Legal Principles of Gift

The Supreme Court examined Ex.A-17, a letter written by the first Respondent, which the Trial Court used to conclude that all three properties were joint family properties. The Supreme Court emphasized that Ex.A-17 constituted a "tacit admission" under Section 17 of the Evidence Act, suggesting that the properties were not solely the first Respondent's. The High Court failed to consider this crucial piece of evidence, leading to a misreading of the evidence.

Regarding the first item of the property, the Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence to support the claim of a valid gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. The property was purchased in the name of the first Respondent while he was a student, and there was no documentation of a gift from his father.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred by not considering Ex.A-17 and the legal principles of gift. The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored, affirming that all three items of the suit properties were joint family properties.