For the correct approach to this question, it would be convenient to quote at the outset the observations of the Judicial Committee in Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatacharla Moniagar (1924) L. R. 52 I. A. 83 :
"It is also quite clear that if a joint Hindu family separates, the family or any members of it may agree to reunite as a joint Hindu family, but such a reuniting is for obvious reasons, which would apply in many cases under the law of the Mitakshara, of very rare occurrence, and when it happens it must be strictly proved as any other disputed fact is proved. The leading authority for that last proposition is Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai (1903) L. R. 30 I. A. 190 ".
27. It is also well settled that to constitute a reunion there must be an intention of the parties to reunite in estate and interest. It is implicit in the concept of a reunion that there shall be an agreement between the parties to reunite in estate with an intention to revert to their former status of members of a joint Hindu family. Such an agreement need not be express, but may be implied from the conduct of the parties alleged to have reunited. But the conduct must be of such an incontrovertible character that an agreement of reunion must be necessarily implied therefrom. As the burden is heavy on a party asserting reunion, ambiguous pieces of conduct equally consistent with a reunion or ordinary joint enjoyment cannot sustain a plea of reunion. The legal position has been neatly summarized in Mayne's Hindu Law, 11th edn., thus at p. 569 :
"As the presumption is in favour of union until a partition is made out so after a partition the presumption would be against a reunion. To establish it, it is necessary to show, not only that the parties already divided, lived or traded together, but that they did so with the intention of thereby altering their status and of farming a joint estate with all its usual incidents. It requires very cogent evidence to satisfy the burden of establishing that by agreement between them, the divided members of a joint Hindu family have succeeded in so altering their status as to bring themselves within all the rights and obligations that follow from the fresh formation of a joint undivided Hindu family. "
28. As we give our full assent to these observations, we need not pursue the matter with further citations except to consider two decisions strongly relied upon by the learned Attorney General. Venkataramayya v. Tatayya A. I. R. 1943 Mad. 538 is a decision of a division bench of the Madras High Court. It was pointed out there that "mere jointness in residence, food or worship or a mere trading together cannot bring about the conversion of the divided status into a joint one with all the usual incidents of jointness in estate and interest unless an intention to become reunited in the sense of the Hindu law is clearly established.
"In our view, it is not necessary that there should be a formal and express agreement to re-unite. Such an agreement can be established by clear evidence of conduct incapable of explanation on any other footing. "
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 448 of 1958
Decided On: 04.09.1961
Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Reoti Devi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Subba Rao, M. Hidayatullah and P.B. Gajendragadkar, JJ.
Citations: 1962 AIR 287, 1962 SCR (3) 440
