How to prove nucleus for acquisition of joint family property?

The burden no doubt is on the plaintiff to establish that there was adequate joint family nucleus out of which his father Ramaswami Iyengar can reasonably be said to have acquired all the suit properties. In a Hindu joint family, if one sues for partition on the foot that the properties claimed by him are joint family properties, then three circumstances ordinarily arise. The first one is an admitted case where there is no dispute about the existence of joint family properties at all. He second is a case where certain properties are admitted to be joint family properties and the other properties in which a share is claimed are alleged to be the accretions or acquisitions from the income of the available joint family properties or in the alternative have been acquired by a sale or conversion of such available properties. The third head is that the properties standing in the names of the female members of the family are benami and that such a state of affairs has been deliberately created by the manager or the head of the family and that really the properties or the amounts standing in the names of female members are properties of the joint family. It is by now well established that properties standing in the names of the female members are their own, unless there is definite, clinching proof to the contrary by the challenging member. It is not for the female member to prove how she acquired the same. In ordinary cases also where a plea of benami is set up it is for the person who comes to Court to establish that the properties standing in the name of the other co-parceners or members are really joint family, properties which stemmed from the joint family nucleus. While considering the term nucleus it should always be remembered that such nucleus has to be established as a matter of fact and. the existence of such a nucleus cannot normally be presumed or assumed on probabilities. The extent of the property, the income from the property, the normal liability with which such income would be charged and the net available surplus of such joint family properties do all enter into computation for the purpose of assessing the content of the reservoir of such nucleus from which alone it could with reasonable certainty be said that the other joint family properties have been purchased unless a strong link and nexus are established between the available surplus income and the alleged joint family properties; the person who comes to Court with such bare allegations without any substantial proof to back it up should fail. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Decided On: 13.08.1976

Ranganayaki Ammal and Ors. Vs. S.R. Srinivasan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tayi Ramaprasada Rao, J.

Citation:(1978 I MLJ 56) 

Print Page

Whether wife can demand partition of joint family property when her husband is alive?

 To clarify this position here it is to be noted that co-parcener refers to a male issue i.e., may be a father or a son. The wives of co-owners do not get any interest by virtue of their marriage. It is only a Hindu widow who gets the interest of her husband in the coparcenary or in the joint family property upon the death of her husband. That interest enables her to claim maintenance and residence. Only a widow can demand partition of the interest which her deceased husband would have been entitled to. Consequently, a wife has no share, right title or interest in the Hindu Undivided Family in which her husband is a co-parcener with his brothers, father or sons and after the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 2005 with his sisters and daughters also. The wife, may be a member of a joint Hindu Family, but by virtue of being a member in the joint Hindu Family she cannot get any share, right, title or interest in the joint Hindu Family property which that family owns. A wife cannot demand for partition unlike a daughter. She would get a share only if partition is demanded by her husband or sons and the property is actually partitioned. The claim by a wife during lifetime of the husband in the share and interest which has as a co-parcener in his Hindu Undivided Family is wholly premature and completely misconceived.

Karnataka High Court

Thabagouda Satteppa Umarani vs Satteppa S/O. Thabagouda Umarani on 2 September, 2014

Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)435 karnat

Print Page

Whether Marriage of Christian lady with Hindu is valid marriage under Hindu Marriage Act?

The Apex Court in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr. (AIR1988 SC 644) pointed out that S.5 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifically says that marriage can be solemnised only between two Hindus. Admittedly in this case Adichan Nadar is a Christian. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the marriage is valid cannot be sustained. We hold that the marriage in question is not a valid one under the Hindu Marriage Act. We are therefore inclined to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the marriage between the fourth defendant with Mariya Augustine is valid.

7. The next question to be considered is whether children born in that marriage could form members of the joint family as per the Hindu Law and whether the children have to be treated by the religion of the father or mother. N.R. Raghavachary's Hindu Law at page 21 states as follows:

"Illegitimacy is no bar to the applicability of the Hindu Law, but in that case either both the parents must be Hindus, or at least the mother must be a Hindu and the child brought up as a Hindu, though the father is a Christian. If the mother is a non-Hindu, for instance, a Christian, or a Mohammedan, Hindu Law has no application to the illegitimate child, the reason being that the religion of such children is to be fixed by the religion to which the mother belongs."

In view of the above mentioned legal proposition we are of the view children born out of that marriage are Christians. Therefore concept of co-parcenary joint family is not applicable. 

Kerala High Court

Vijayakumari vs Devabalan on 17 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 Ker 363, I (2004) DMC 667, 2003 (3) KLT 695

Bench: K Radhakrishnan, P C Kuriakose

Print Page