9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 365 - HC - Indian LawsPartition of HUF - Title to property - Requisite Court fees - HUF Property - Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court Fee and whether proper court fee has been affixed on the plaint in light of the plaintiff‟s claim that she is in constructive possession of the suit property - Held that - plaintiff herself had valued the suit premises at Rs. 40 lakhs, but has affixed the court fees of Rs. 19.50 - court fees that is filed is apparently deficient. As per Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is required to pay the court fees on one-fourth share claimed by her. Thus, the plaintiff was required to pay the court fees at Rs. 10 lakhs being one-fourth of the value of the suit premises. Whether the suit property is self-acquired/HUF property of the father - Held that - From the Assessment Order dated 31.03.1972 of the Assessment Year 1972-73, it is seen that the plaintiff s father had declared some income from the suit premises in the status of HUF. It is also seen therefrom that the HUF came into existence under the assessee s declaration made on 23.05.1966 on an affidavit. The Income Tax record of the subsequent year upto the Assessment Year 1999-2000 would evidence that the plaintiff s father had been filing Income Tax Returns and been assessed to Income Tax as Karta of HUF. Suit premises was initially acquired by the plaintiff s father in his own name and it was in those circumstances that the suit premises continued to be assessed to property tax in his individual name than that of HUF. The payment of property tax by any means does not create any right or title in the name of the assessee. Filing an eviction case by the plaintiff s father in his own name instead of the HUF, can also be said to be only for the convenience. In any case, the partition could only be filed by him in his name, being the Karta of HUF. The conclusion comes out to be that the suit premises was the HUF property of the plaintiff s father, with he being the Karta thereof till his death. Plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share in the suit premises. This will however be conditional to the payment of deficient court fees by the plaintiff as indicated above, which she would be required to deposit within four weeks from the date of this order - Decided partly in favour of Plaintiff.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court Fee and whether proper court fee has been affixed on the plaint in light of the plaintiff's claim that she is in constructive possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the suit property is self-acquired/HUF property of the father? 3. Whether the property was settled by way of oral partition dated 21st July, 2001 and whether the same was acted upon by the parties? 4. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act? 5. To what shares are the parties entitled to? 6. Relief. Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: The plaintiff valued the suit premises at Rs. 40 lakhs but affixed a court fee of Rs. 19.50/-, claiming possession of a room on the ground floor. The defendants denied her possession. The court found no cogent evidence of her possession and determined the court fees were deficient. As per Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff was required to pay court fees on her one-fourth share, amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs. The issue was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2: The plaintiff claimed the suit premises were self-acquired by her father, while the defendants asserted it was HUF property. The court referred to established law that separate property can be impressed with the character of joint family property if the owner voluntarily throws it into the common stock with a clear intention to abandon separate rights. The court found that the plaintiff's father had declared the property as HUF in an affidavit dated 23.05.1966, and it was assessed as HUF by the Income Tax and Wealth Tax authorities from 1972-73 until his death. Thus, the court concluded the suit premises were HUF property. The issue was decided in favor of the defendants. Issue No. 3: The plaintiff's claim of an oral partition on 21.07.2001 was categorically denied by the defendants. The court found no satisfactory evidence from the plaintiff to support her claim. The issue was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 4: The court examined the applicability of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which confers equal rights in coparcenary property to daughters. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr., which clarified that the amendment applies prospectively from 09.09.2005, granting daughters the same rights as sons in ancestral property. The court concluded that the plaintiff, being a daughter, should benefit from the amendment, despite the suit being filed before the amendment. The issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issues 5 & 6: Based on the findings, the plaintiff was entitled to a one-fourth share in the suit premises, conditional upon the payment of the deficient court fees within four weeks. The suit was decreed accordingly. Conclusion: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting her a one-fourth share in the suit premises, subject to the payment of the deficient court fees. The decree was to be drawn based on these terms.
|
