2003 (8) TMI 593 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Property: Whether Item No. 1 property was self-acquired or joint Hindu family property.
2. Burden of Proof: Who bears the burden to prove the nature of the property.
3. Blending of Property: Whether the self-acquired property was blended with joint family property.

Summary:

Nature of Property:
The respondents (original plaintiffs) claimed a 2/3rd share in two properties (Item No. 1 and Item No. 2), asserting that Item No. 1 was acquired using joint Hindu family funds and Item No. 2 was ancestral property. The trial court decreed in favor of the respondents, but the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that Item No. 1 was self-acquired by the first appellant. The High Court restored the trial court's judgment, but the Supreme Court focused on whether Item No. 1 was self-acquired or joint family property.

Burden of Proof:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving a property as joint family property lies on the party asserting it. Citing precedents like *Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti* and *Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango*, the Court noted that proof of a joint family does not automatically presume joint family property. The respondents failed to show that Item No. 2 property yielded any income or formed a nucleus for acquiring Item No. 1. Thus, the burden did not shift to the first appellant to prove self-acquisition.

Blending of Property:
The respondents contended that even if Item No. 1 was self-acquired, it was blended with joint family property. The Court held that for blending to be established, clear intention to abandon separate rights must be shown. Mere joint use or generosity does not suffice. The respondents did not provide evidence of such intention, and thus, the claim of blending failed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Item No. 1 property was not joint family property and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the first appellate court's decision. The appeal was allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.