2020 (4) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

HUF - whether the property is a joint property or the property of HUF? - principles of estoppel - will executed by Hari Ram in connection with the disputed property is Null and void - HELD THAT - It is clear that not only jointness of the family has to be proved but burden lies upon the person alleging existence of a joint family to prove that the property belongs to the joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of the joint Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. This has not been proved in the present case. Merely because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family. The doctrine of election is a facet of law of estoppel. A party cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Any party which takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is mentioned in the said document. As far as the lands described in 9(2)(f) and 9(2)(g) are concerned these lands were taken on lease by Nathu Lal, S/o Hari Ram from the zamindar of Ashok Nagar. According to the plaintiffs these lands were also lands of the joint family but that version cannot be believed in view of the patta granted in favour of Nathu Lal. It may be true that consideration for grant of patta may have been paid but there is no material on record to show that this payment was made out of the funds of HUF. It may be pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs have alleged that in 1951 Nathu Lal was a minor and the amount was paid by Hari Ram. However, no proof has been led in this regard. In fact, from the material on record it appears that Nathu Lal was about 21 years old at that time. There are no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant(s) and the same are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the properties mentioned in para No.9 of the plaint are the properties of the joint family or self-acquired properties.
2. Whether the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.94-A/86 mentioned the Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram as the basis of the suit.
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from alleging the said Will as null and void.
4. Whether the Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram in connection with the disputed property is null and void.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Joint Family Property vs. Self-Acquired Property:
The primary issue was whether the properties listed in para 9 of the plaint were joint family properties or self-acquired. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the person alleging the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The law is well settled that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. However, merely living together or acting jointly does not constitute a coparcenary under Mitakshara law. The court cited several precedents, including Bhagwan Dayal vs. Reoti Devi and Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti, to underline that the existence of joint family property must be established with concrete evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an HUF or that the properties were acquired from a joint family nucleus.

2. Mention of the Will in Civil Suit No.94-A/86:
The defendants argued that the plaintiff had mentioned the Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram in an earlier suit, thereby accepting its validity. The court examined the context and found that the plaintiff had indeed referred to the Will in the previous litigation, which suggested an acknowledgment of its legitimacy.

3. Estoppel from Alleging the Will as Null and Void:
The court discussed the doctrine of election, which prevents a party from accepting benefits under a Will while simultaneously challenging it. The principle of estoppel was applied, noting that the plaintiff had accepted benefits from the Will in previous legal actions. The court cited precedents, including The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd., to support its conclusion that the plaintiff could not now contest the Will's validity.

4. Validity of the Will dated 6.2.1987:
The court examined the Will and found no substantive evidence to declare it null and void. The Will detailed the distribution of properties and was consistent with the actions of Hari Ram, who had sold some properties during his lifetime without any objections from the plaintiff or his predecessors. The court also noted that the plaintiff had previously accepted the Will's provisions, further undermining his current challenge.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the plaintiff's claims. The properties were deemed self-acquired by Hari Ram and not part of a joint family estate. The plaintiff's actions in previous suits, where he accepted the Will, estopped him from challenging its validity now. The court upheld the High Court's decision, setting aside the trial court's decree of partition.