2020 (5) TMI 752 - HC - Indian Laws

Existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) - partition based on title documents - Whether the Courts today can permit litigants coming before it to take a stand before the Court different from that they have been taking for long period of time before taxation and other authorities? - HELD THAT - The Courts if permit the litigants to for the purposes of litigation take a different stand from what they have been taking while complying with various laws would be aiding and abetting such litigants to violate the laws particularly fiscal laws and would be permitting the litigants to change their face from time to time to their advantage and to the detriment of public exchequer and the public at large. The same cannot be permitted. The documents executed by the wife and son of J.R. Jain who have now raised the bogey of HUF belie that the property was ever owned by or dealt with as the property of HUF. Again no litigant can be permitted to when faced with litigation turn turtle and take a stand diametrically opposite with the past dealing with the subject matter of the dispute - It cannot also be forgotten that the initiation of this suit for partition was by none other than the daughter-in-law of J.R. Jain namely Niti who it is not as if is estranged from the remaining family of J.R. Jain or from her husband; she and her husband are themselves residing in the subject property. J.R. Jain representing all the owners of the property created leases of different portions of the property in favour of companies of which also the family members were shareholders Directors and for the residence of Ramesh and Raj Kumar as tenants therein. J.R. Jain while so letting out the property did not create lease on behalf of any HUF and the rentals were not credited to any HUF. The explanation of the same being for taxation purposes cannot be accepted. As aforesaid what is good for revenue purposes is good for Court purposes also and different stands diametrically contrary to each other cannot be permitted to be taken. The pleas in the written statements of Ram Kali Ramesh and Raj Kumar who alone are contesting the suit are not found to be bona fide; the said pleas are vague and without any particulars; they are inconsistent with the past admitted conduct of the family of J.R. Jain to which Ram Kali Ramesh and Raj Kumar belong and seek to by way of clever drafting create an illusion of a defence to this suit for partition when no such defence exists. Resultantly as per the law of framing of issues the same do not constitute raising any material proposition of law or fact - Once the pleas aforesaid are not found to be raising any material proposition of law and fact inviting framing of any issue thereon the shares are not in dispute and there is no impediment to a preliminary decree for partition being passed. List before the Roster Bench on 6th August 2020.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
2. Ownership of the property by the alleged HUF.
3. Oral family settlement among the members of the HUF.
4. Entitlement to partition based on title documents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF):

The court examined whether there was a valid Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) as claimed by some defendants. The defendants argued that the property was part of a joint family estate, citing historical family business ventures and properties acquired over time. However, the court noted that there was no evidence of the HUF being recognized in any taxation or governmental documentation. The court emphasized that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the concept of ancestral property has been significantly altered, and mere joint ownership does not imply the existence of an HUF. The court found the pleas regarding the HUF to be vague, lacking particulars, and inconsistent with the past conduct of the family members.

2. Ownership of the Property by the Alleged HUF:

The defendants claimed that the property was owned by the HUF, but the court highlighted that the property was purchased by four individuals, each representing a branch of the family. The court questioned how the property, once purchased by these individuals, became the property of an HUF without any formal declaration or documentation. The court also noted that the Gift Deeds executed by family members indicated individual ownership rather than HUF ownership, as they represented themselves as sole absolute owners of their respective shares.

3. Oral Family Settlement Among the Members of the HUF:

The defendants contended that there was an oral family settlement that allocated the property to specific family branches. The court scrutinized this claim, noting the absence of any specific date, month, or year when such a settlement was allegedly made. The court referred to legal precedents indicating that while family settlements can be oral, they must be clear and unequivocal. The court found no credible evidence of such a settlement and concluded that the long-term occupation of the property by different family branches did not substantiate the existence of an oral family settlement.

4. Entitlement to Partition Based on Title Documents:

The court focused on the title documents, which clearly indicated the ownership shares of the parties involved. The court reiterated that the property was purchased in the names of four individuals, each having a 25% share. The court found no legal impediment to passing a preliminary decree for partition based on these title documents. The shares were declared as follows: Pramod Kumar Jain (25%), Sunil Jain (25%), Ram Kali Jain (12.5%), Shruti Jain (12.5%), and Niti Jain (25%).

In conclusion, the court dismissed the claims of the existence of an HUF and an oral family settlement due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the defendants' pleas. The court proceeded to pass a preliminary decree for partition based on the clear title documents, affirming the respective shares of the parties involved.