2020 [4] advocatemmmohan apex court cases 4
Suit for Partition - decreed by trial court - Appellant court set aside the trial court decree - Apex court held that The law is well settled that the burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same.
1. Whether the properties mentioned in para No.9 of the plaint
are the properties of the joint family both the sides or whether
the same are the self acquired properties as per the averments
made by the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.94-A/86 filed in the
Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Ashok Nagar, has mentioned the
Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram as the basis of the
suit?
3. If yes, Whether the plaintiff is stopped from alleging the said
Will as null and void?
4. Whether the Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram in
connection with the disputed property is Null and void?
12. From the facts stated above it is apparent that there is no pleading that Mangat Ram and Sons constituted a HUF. There is no allegation that this family had some property as its nucleus.
Since there is no allegation that Mangat Ram and his four sons constituted a HUF, the fact that Lal Chand left the family to live by himself, would not in any manner mean that there was a disruption of the joint family status. A disruption would arise only if there was an allegation that earlier there was a HUF.
13. It is also an admitted case of the parties that Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal came separately to Ashok Nagar. Madhav Prashad initially worked as a munshi with a zamindar. Thereafter, as per the defendants, Madhav Prashad started a business which was his own but later his brother Umrao Lal joined in the business. It is, however, contended that this business was not a business of a HUF.
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6875 OF 2008
BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR.LRS.) …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
PURUSHOTTAM & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6876-6877 OF 2008
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. One Mangat Ram was a resident of Village Narnaul in
Rajasthan. He had four sons viz., Madhav Prashad, Lal Chand,
Ram Chand and Umrao Lal. Ram Chand was adopted by one Shri
Gauri Mal of Gwalior. Lal Chand had four sons viz., Sri Ram, Hari
Ram, Govind and Laxmi Narayan. Madhav Prashad had no issues.
Therefore, he adopted Hari Ram, the son of Lal Chand. Ram
Chand also had no issues and he adopted Shriram, son of Lal
Chand. It is the admitted case of the parties that both Ram Chand
2
and Lal Chand severed connections with the family and had no
connection with the property of the family. This left two branches
in the family of Mangat Ram, one being Madhav Prashad and his
descendants through his son Hari Ram, the other branch
consisted of Umrao Lal and his three sons viz., Brij Mohan,
Rameshwar and Radha Krishan. The plaintiff Bhagwat Sharan,
who filed the suit is the son of Radha Krishan and grandson of
Umrao Lal.
2. The above facts are not disputed. The parties are also ad idem
that Madhav Prashad shifted from his native village and came to
Ashok Nagar, about 70 years prior to the filing of the suit. The suit
was filed in 1988. Thus, Madhav Prashad must have shifted in or
around 1918. It is also not disputed that Madhav Prashad started
working as munshi of the then zamindar of the area and was
thereafter known as munshi Madhav Prashad. The dispute
basically starts hereinafter. The plaintiff claims that his
grandfather Umrao Lal also came to Ashok Nagar at about the
same time and started doing grain business. Thereafter, Madhav
Prashad left the work of munshi and both the brothers started grain
business in the name of “Munshi Madhav Prashad”, by setting up
a shop. The case of the plaintiff is that both Madhav Prashad and
3
Umrao Lal lived together and carried on the business jointly and
purchased various properties described in para 9 of the plaint. Six
properties comprise of six different houses. The properties at para
9(2) comprised of various agricultural lands in different villages.
The case of the plaintiff is that all these houses have been
constructed jointly by Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal, and
Madhav Prashad being the elder brother was the karta and was
running the joint family in this capacity. It was further alleged in
the plaint that Madhav Prashad being the karta managed to get
some of the joint family property recorded in his own name. It was
also alleged that after the death of Madhav Prashad and Umrao
Lal, Hari Ram, adopted son of Madhav Prashad (who had died by
the time the suit was filed in 1988) was the karta of the joint Hindu
family and in this capacity some of the properties of the Joint
Hindu Family were recorded in his name.
3. It is not disputed that Madhav Prashad died some time in the
year 1935, Umrao Singh died some time in 1941-42 and Hari Ram
died in the year 1978.
4. In respect of agricultural lands it was pleaded that all these
agricultural lands were under the joint cultivation of the family
and the full accounts of the cultivation was kept by late Madhav
4
Prashad and Umrao Lal, and after their death by Hari Ram. After
the death of Hari Ram, his widow Rajjo Devi (Def.no.6), used to
look after cultivation on behalf of the family. It was further alleged
in the plaint that Hari Ram had transferred some of the
agricultural lands in the name of his brother-in-law, son, son-inlaw and other relatives as benami transactions, which was obvious
from the fact that the General Power of Attorney was executed by
the beneficiaries of these transactions in favour of Hari Ram.
However, this fact was not revealed to the branch of the family who
were descendants of Umrao Lal. Basically, the allegation was that
all the properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint were properties
of the Hindu Undivided Family (for short HUF) and, therefore, the
plaintiff sought partition of the same by metes and bounds as per
his share.
5. For the sake of convenience it would be appropriate to extract
para 18 of the plaint which reads as follows:-
“(18) That the business of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
1 to 18 was almost joint till the year 1954. Thereafter, on
account of the loss in the business and the business coming to
a closure position almost all the people started carrying on their
separate business and the immovable properties of the joint
family remained undivided so far. Late Hari Ram sold the house
properties mentioned in para No.9(1) (c) (d) (e) (f) of the plaint
during his life time, which are liable to be reduced from there
share”
5
This suit was contested by some of the defendants who were either
in the line of descendants of Hari Ram or his beneficiaries.
Transfer documents were executed in their favour. It would be
pertinent to mention that none of the other heirs from the lineage
of Umrao Lal filed a written statement. In the written statement
filed by the contesting respondents the main objection taken was
that the properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint were not
properties of the HUF and it was denied that there ever was any
such HUF.
6. The defendants denied the fact that the business being run
under the name of “Munshi Madhav Prashad” was a joint family
business. It was denied that Umrao Lal was a member of this
business or the said shop was a joint shop. With regard to all the
properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint, it was stated that all
the houses had been purchased/constructed by Madhav Prashad
alone and that the agricultural lands were purchased by Hari Ram
from his own income.
7. In the written statement the defendants also placed reliance
on the Will of late Hari Ram and made reference to a suit filed by
the plaintiff and defendant nos.1-3 in which they had stated that a
portion of the house had been bequeathed to them by Hari Ram by
6
his Will. It was therefore urged that the plaintiff having elected to
accept the bequest under the Will cannot now turn around and say
that the description of the properties given by Hari Ram in the Will
showing them to be his personal properties was not correct. It was
also alleged that as admitted in the plaint itself 3 out of 6 houses
were sold by Hari Ram in his lifetime.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties various issues
were framed but according to us only the following issues are
relevant which are extracted below :-
1. Whether the properties mentioned in para No.9 of the plaint
are the properties of the joint family both the sides or whether
the same are the self acquired properties as per the averments
made by the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.94-A/86 filed in the
Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Ashok Nagar, has mentioned the
Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram as the basis of the
suit?
3. If yes, Whether the plaintiff is stopped from alleging the said
Will as null and void?
4. Whether the Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram in
connection with the disputed property is Null and void?
The trial court decided all these issues in favour of the plaintiff and
decreed the suit holding that all the properties were joint family
properties and that plaintiff had 2.38% share in the same. The
contesting defendants filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, and the decree of partition by the trial court was set aside.
7
The plaintiff approached the High Court for review. The High Court
dismissed the application for condonation of delay, the application
for review and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence this appeal before us.
9. We have heard Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior
counsel for the appellant, Shri Harin P. Raval, learned senior
counsel for those respondents who support the appellant and Shri
Guru Krishna Kumar, Shri Vikas Singh, and Shri Anupam Lal Das,
learned senior counsel, for the contesting respondents.
10. At the outset we may note that a lot of arguments were
addressed and judgments were cited on the attributes of HUF and
the manner in which it can be constituted. In view of the facts
narrated above, in our view, a large number of these arguments
and citations need not be considered. The law is well settled that
the burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint
property of an HUF to prove the same. Reference in this behalf
may be made to the judgments of this Court in Bhagwan Dayal
vs. Reoti Devi1. Both the parties have placed reliance on the this
judgment. In this case this Court held that the general principle
is that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary
1 AIR 1962 SC 287
8
is proved. It was further held that where one of the coparceners
separated himself from other members of the joint family there was
no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to
constitute a joint family. However, it was also held that at the
same time there is no presumption that because one member of
the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint
family. However, it is important to note that this Court in
Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Ors. vs. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer
and Ors.2, it held as follows:-
“…. Except in the case of reunion, the mere fact that
separated coparceners chose to live together or act jointly
for purposes of business or trade or in their dealings with
properties, would not give them the status of coparceners
under the Mitakshara law.”
The Privy Council in Appalaswami v.
Suryanarayanamurti3 held as follows:
"The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled.
Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the
presumption that property held by any member of the
family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting
that any item of property was joint to establish the fact.
But where it is established that the family possessed some
joint property which from its nature and relative value may
have formed the nucleus from which the property in
question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the
party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively
2 (1951) 2 SCR 603
3 I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440
9
that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint
family property”
The aforesaid view was accepted by this Court in Shrinivas
Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors.4 In D.S.
Lakshmaiah and Ors. v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors.5 this
Court held as follows:
“The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no
presumption of a property being joint family property only
on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one
who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family
property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that
there was nucleus with which the joint family property
could be acquired, there would be presumption of the
property being joint and the onus would shift on the
person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove
that he purchased the property with his own funds and
not out of joint family nucleus that was available.”
Similar view was taken in Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala
Laxminarayan and Others.6 and Appasaheb Peerappa
Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade7. The law is
thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges
the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.
11. Normally, an HUF can only comprise of all the family
members with the head of the family being karta. Some property
4
(1955) 1 SCR 1
5
(2003) 10 SCC 310
6
(1960) 2 SCR 253
7
(2007) 1 SCC 521
10
has to be the nucleus for this joint family. There is cleavage of
opinion as to whether two brothers of a larger group can form a
joint family. But assuming that such a joint family could have been
formed by Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal the burden lies heavily
on the plaintiff to prove that the two of them joined together to form
an HUF. To prove this, they will have to not only show jointness
of the property but also jointness of family and jointness of living
together.
12. From the facts stated above it is apparent that there is no
pleading that Mangat Ram and Sons constituted a HUF. There is
no allegation that this family had some property as its nucleus.
Since there is no allegation that Mangat Ram and his four sons
constituted a HUF, the fact that Lal Chand left the family to live by
himself, would not in any manner mean that there was a disruption
of the joint family status. A disruption would arise only if there
was an allegation that earlier there was a HUF.
13. It is also an admitted case of the parties that Madhav Prashad
and Umrao Lal came separately to Ashok Nagar. Madhav Prashad
initially worked as a munshi with a zamindar. Thereafter, as per
the defendants, Madhav Prashad started a business which was his
own but later his brother Umrao Lal joined in the business. It is,
11
however, contended that this business was not a business of a
HUF.
14. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff is that it was
Umrao Lal who started the business and Madhav Prashad joined
him later on but since Madhav Prashad was the elder brother, the
business was started in the name of Madhav Prashad. There is no
evidence to support the claim either way. The witnesses who have
appeared were all born much later and they have not given any
evidence with regard to the joint business. The plaintiff Bhagwat
Sharan was born in the year 1951. The contesting defendants 4
and 8 are younger to him by 5 and 11 years. Therefore, the oral
testimony of these witnesses is not of any use as rightly held by the
trial court.
15. The plaintiff places great reliance on the mortgage deed by
which 5 houses were mortgaged in favour of Seth Budhmal on
01.12.1944 and 26.11.1946. It is not disputed that there were 6
houses, some single storeyed and some double storeyed in Ashok
Nagar which have been described in the plaint. Out of these
houses, one was used as dharamshala and the remaining 5 were
mortgaged on 01.12.1944 vide mortgage deed (Exh.P.28). This
mortgage deed was executed by Hari Ram, S/o Madhav Prashad,
12
and Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Das and Radha Krishan, S/o Umrao
Lal and Pop Chand and Babu Lal @ Deep Chand, minor sons of
Brij Mohan through their father and Nathu Lal minor S/o Hari
Ram, through his father and they are shown as proprietors of firm
M/s Madhav Prashad Agarwal. In the mortgage deed after
description of the 5 houses it is mentioned that these properties
are “owned and possessed by us”. Further it is mentioned that the
properties are free from all encumbrances and there are no other
sharers, and the mortgagees have full right to alienate the same.
The 5 houses were accordingly mortgaged with Seth Budhmal.
This was done with a view to pay off the loan of Krishna Ram Baldeo
Bank, with which the properties were already mortgaged. The
amount which they obtained by mortgaging the property was
transferred to the Bank and fresh mortgage was created in favour
of Seth Budhmal. In para 5 of the mortgage deed it was mentioned
that the mortgaged property is free from all encumbrances and, “we
are the absolute owners of the same and there is no co-parcener
and co-sharer”. This mortgage deed was signed by Hari Ram, Brij
Mohan, Rameshwar Lal, Radha Krishan as mortgagors. This
would indicate that these properties were owned by them.
13
16. However, there is no material on record to show that the
properties belonged to an HUF. They may have been joint
properties but merely on the basis of the recitals in the mortgage
deed they cannot be said to be a joint family property. It appears
that by another mortgage deed dated 26.11.1946, the value of the
mortgaged properties was enhanced to Rs. 45,000/-, and in
addition to the 5 houses, one oil mill at Pachhar was also
mortgaged. Seth Budhmal filed a suit (Exh.P.4) against Hari Ram,
Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Lal, Radha Krishan, Nathu Lal etc., for
realisation of the mortgage money under the said mortgage deed.
In para 6 and 8 of the plaint it was averred as follows :-
“6. That, the defendants at the time of execution of
aforesaid documents constituted a Trading Joint Hindu
Family and of which all major members personally and
minor members through their head of the branch were
represented in the execution of mortgage deeds.
8. That, minors mentioned in the documents have
now attained majority. Therefore, they have been
impleaded in person as defendants. Their liability is
limited to the extent of property of Joint Hindu Family and
personal dealing. Defendant No.1 to 3 are personally and
in the capacity of head of their branch are made in as
defendants.”
17. A written statement was filed on 09.10.1955 (Ex.P-5) on
behalf of the aforesaid Hari Ram, Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Lal,
Radha Krishan and Nathu Lal, and reply to paras 6 and 8 of the
mortgage deed, read as follows:-
14
“6. That as regards paragraph 6 of the plaint there is
no objection.
8. That, as regards paragraph 8 of the plaint the
reply is that the defendant No.6 is still minor. He has not
attained majority. It is not admitted that defendant No.1
to 3 are Head (KARTA) being wrong, nor they are the Head,
nor the mortgage transaction was made in such a capacity
and the plaintiff has no right to sue in such a manner.”
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings in the earlier suit it is
submitted that Hari Ram had admitted that there was a joint
family business when this written statement was filed and,
therefore, there is proof that the business was a joint family
business and there is no material to show that this joint family
status was ever disrupted.
18. It is submitted on behalf of the contesting respondent that
since the family members of Hari Ram were residing in the
mortgaged house, by way of abundant precaution they may have
been made to sign the mortgage deed. In our view, that may not
be true because the mortgage deed clearly reflects that all the
family members including the minors were shown to be owners of
the properties by mortgaging the same. Therefore, this property
which was mortgaged in the year 1944 and then re-mortgaged in
1946 would prima facie appear to be joint property though at this
15
stage we are not deciding whether the property is a joint property
or the property of HUF.
19. An admission made by a party is only a piece of evidence and
not conclusive proof of what is stated therein. It is in this light
that we have to examine the admission made by Hari Ram and his
brothers while filing the written statement to the suit filed by Seth
Budhmal. In paragraph 6 the averment was that the defendants
constituted trading Joint Hindu Family. It is obvious that the
admission was with regard to a trading family and not HUF. In
view of the law cited above, it is clear that not only jointness of the
family has to be proved but burden lies upon the person alleging
existence of a joint family to prove that the property belongs to the
joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that
the property is the nucleus of the joint Hindu family or that it was
purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. In our
opinion, this has not been proved in the present case. Merely
because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that
there is a Joint Hindu Family. As far as paragraph 8 is concerned
in our view there is no clear-cut admission. The allegation made
was that the minors were represented by defendant nos. 1-3, who
were head of their respective branches. In reply to this it was
16
stated that defendant nos.1-3 were neither the head or the karta,
nor the mortgage transaction was made in that capacity. This
admission cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission of there
being a joint family.
20. In Nagubai Ammal and Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao and Ors.8
which is the locus classicus on the subject it was held as follows:-
“An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the
matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the
weight to be attached to which must depend on the
circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to
be erroneous or untrue, so long as the person to whom it
was made has not acted upon it to his detriment, when it
might become conclusive by way of estoppel.”
9
It would be pertinent to mention that in Himani Alloys Ltd. vs.
Tata Steel Ltd.,
10 it was also held that the admission should be
categorical, should be conscious and deliberate act of the party
making it. As far as the present case is concerned we do not find
any clear-cut admission with regard to the existence of an HUF.
At best, from the recitals in the mortgage deed and averments in
the written statement, all that can be said is that at the relevant
period of time the property was treated to be a joint property.
8 (1956) 1 SCR 451
9 This view has been consistently followed by this Court in a large number of cases including Bharat Singh and
Anr. vs. Bhagirathi 1966 SCR (1) 606; Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120;
Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273.
10 (2011) 15 SCC 273
17
21. On the other hand, there are many other documents relied
upon by the defendants. Out of the 6 houses, 5 were mortgaged
and one is admittedly a dharamshala. Out of these 5 houses, 3
were sold by Hari Ram during his life time and during the life time
of the predecessors of the plaintiff, nobody objected to the sales of
the properties and in the sale deeds Hari Ram is described as the
sole owner of the property. One such sale deed is Exh.D-4 wherein
it is mentioned that the double storey house is the property of the
trading firm Madhav Prashad Agarwal and that Hari Ram is the
owner of the firm and in order to repay the loan, sold the house
to two persons. This sale deed was witnessed by Seth Budhmal.
Though it is not stated so in the sale deed it appears that the
amount of consideration must have been paid to Seth Budhmal.
This document was executed on 12.09.1967, and this read with
the other two sale deeds clearly indicate that Hari Ram claimed
that he was the sole proprietor of the business of the trading firm
Madhav Prashad Agarwal.
22. These sale deeds and the recitals were never challenged by
the plaintiff or his predecessors. This would indicate that the
jointness of the property if any had ceased because of some family
arrangement or partition which may have happened much earlier.
18
We have to read the sale deeds in conjunction with the averments
made in the plaint quoted hereinabove wherein the plaintiff has
stated that the business came to a closure and then almost all the
people started carrying on their separate business. Though it is
averred that the immovable properties remained the properties of
the joint family the fact that separate branches started doing
separate business is indicative of the fact that some separation, if
not, a formal partition had taken place between the parties.
23. The other important document is the Will of Hari Ram
(Exh. P-3). In this Will, Hari Ram gives details of the remaining 3
houses and mentions that these were owned by his father Madhav
Prashad and that he (Hari Ram) has been doing business in the
name of his father Munshi Madhav Prashad Agarwal. Out of the
6 houses, 3 had already been sold by Hari Ram and he has
bequeathed the remaining 3 houses to various persons. It would
be relevant to refer to the portion of the Will where Hari Ram states
that he had 3 cousins Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Lal and Radha
Krishan. Out of these, Radha Krishan died and was survived by
his widow and 3 sons and they were living in the 2nd and 3rd floor
in building No.2. Hari Ram bequeathed certain portions of the
immovable property to the widow and children of Radha Krishan.
19
It would be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff Bhagwat Sharan
is the son of Radha Krishan. He also bequeathed certain
properties in favour of his cousins Brij Mohan and Rameshwar Lal.
24. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff and defendant nos.
1-3 herein filed suit for eviction of an occupant in which he claimed
that the property had been bequeathed to him by Hari Ram.
According to the defendants the plaintiff having accepted the Will
of Hariram and having taken benefit of the same, cannot turn
around and urge that the Will is not valid and that the entire
property is a joint family property. The plaintiff and defendant nos.
1-3 by accepting the bequest under the Will elected to accept the
will. It is trite law that a party cannot be permitted to approbate
and reprobate at the same time. This principle is based on the
principle of doctrine of election. In respect of Wills, this doctrine
has been held to mean that a person who takes benefit of a portion
of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will. In
The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation and Anr. vs . Diamond and Gem Development
Corporation Ltd. and Anr11, this Court made an observation that
a party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose"
11 AIR 2013 SC 1241
20
or "approbate and reprobate". Where one party knowingly accepts
the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, it is estopped
to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or
conveyance or order.
25. The doctrine of election is a facet of law of estoppel. A party
cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Any party which
takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is
mentioned in the said document. It would be apposite to refer to
the treatise 'Equity-A course of lectures' by F.W. Maitland,
Cambridge University, 1947, wherein the learned author
succinctly described principle of election in the following terms:-
“The doctrine of Election may be thus stated: That he who
accepts a benefit under a deed or will or other instrument
must adopt the whole contents of that instrument, must
conform to all its provisions and renounce all rights that
are inconsistent with it....’’
This view has been accepted to be the correct view in Karam
Kapahi and Ors. vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and
Ors.
12. The plaintiff having elected to accept the Will of Hari Ram,
by filing a suit for eviction of the tenant by claiming that the
property had been bequeathed to him by Hari Ram, cannot now
12 (2010) 4 SCC 753
21
turn around and say that the averments made by Hari Ram that
the property was his personal property, is incorrect.
26. As far as the agricultural lands are concerned the trial court
decreed the suit in respect of the agricultural lands on the basis
that Madhav Prashad and his brother Umrao Lal and their
successors constituted an HUF. The said lands having been
bought out of the funds of the HUF would be treated to be the
property of the HUF, even though they may have been entered in
the name of any other person. In view of the above discussion,
and the fact that we have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove
that there is an HUF, we are not inclined to agree with the finding
of the trial court.
27. We now deal with each of the agricultural property
separately. The properties described in paragraph 9(2)(a) of the
plaint were earlier recorded in the name of Hari Ram and later in
the names of his sons Purushottam and Vinod. The property at
paragraph 9(2)(b) was also recorded in the name of Hari Ram and
he had given cultivation rights to Sri Ram who is stated to have
become the owner thereof. Similarly, the land described in
paragraph 9(2)(c) also was shown in the name of Hari Ram and
this was given to Kahiya Lal on tenancy. The land described in
22
paragraph 9(2)(d) was also recorded in the name of Hari Ram and
was transferred to Shiv Charan, and now stands in the name of
his legal heirs. The land described in paragraph 9(2)(e) which
stood in the name of Hari Ram was also transferred by him in the
name of his wife Rajjo Devi in 1969.
28. As far as the lands described in 9(2)(f) and 9(2)(g) are
concerned these lands were taken on lease by Nathu Lal, S/o Hari
Ram from the zamindar of Ashok Nagar. According to the plaintiffs
these lands were also lands of the joint family but that version
cannot be believed in view of the patta granted in favour of Nathu
Lal. It may be true that consideration for grant of patta may have
been paid but there is no material on record to show that this
payment was made out of the funds of HUF. It may be pertinent
to mention here that the plaintiffs have alleged that in 1951 Nathu
Lal was a minor and the amount was paid by Hari Ram. However,
no proof has been led in this regard. In fact, from the material on
record it appears that Nathu Lal was about 21 years old at that
time. He was definitely more than 18 years old and thus not a
minor. These lands were never shown to be owned by Madhav
Prashad or Umrao Lal. It is also pertinent to mention that various
parts of the land were transferred to various other persons and
23
these transfers were never challenged by the plaintiff at the
relevant time. It would also be pertinent to mention that both the
courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove that they were getting any proceeds from the income
of the agricultural land. This also indicates that the said land was
not joint.
29. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the
appeals filed by the appellant(s) and the same are dismissed with
no order as to costs. Pending application(s) if any, shall
accordingly stand disposed of.
…………………………………J.
(L. Nageswara Rao)
…………………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
April 3, 2020
Suit for Partition - decreed by trial court - Appellant court set aside the trial court decree - Apex court held that The law is well settled that the burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same.
1. Whether the properties mentioned in para No.9 of the plaint
are the properties of the joint family both the sides or whether
the same are the self acquired properties as per the averments
made by the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.94-A/86 filed in the
Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Ashok Nagar, has mentioned the
Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram as the basis of the
suit?
3. If yes, Whether the plaintiff is stopped from alleging the said
Will as null and void?
4. Whether the Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram in
connection with the disputed property is Null and void?
12. From the facts stated above it is apparent that there is no pleading that Mangat Ram and Sons constituted a HUF. There is no allegation that this family had some property as its nucleus.
Since there is no allegation that Mangat Ram and his four sons constituted a HUF, the fact that Lal Chand left the family to live by himself, would not in any manner mean that there was a disruption of the joint family status. A disruption would arise only if there was an allegation that earlier there was a HUF.
13. It is also an admitted case of the parties that Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal came separately to Ashok Nagar. Madhav Prashad initially worked as a munshi with a zamindar. Thereafter, as per the defendants, Madhav Prashad started a business which was his own but later his brother Umrao Lal joined in the business. It is, however, contended that this business was not a business of a HUF.
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6875 OF 2008
BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR.LRS.) …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
PURUSHOTTAM & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6876-6877 OF 2008
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. One Mangat Ram was a resident of Village Narnaul in
Rajasthan. He had four sons viz., Madhav Prashad, Lal Chand,
Ram Chand and Umrao Lal. Ram Chand was adopted by one Shri
Gauri Mal of Gwalior. Lal Chand had four sons viz., Sri Ram, Hari
Ram, Govind and Laxmi Narayan. Madhav Prashad had no issues.
Therefore, he adopted Hari Ram, the son of Lal Chand. Ram
Chand also had no issues and he adopted Shriram, son of Lal
Chand. It is the admitted case of the parties that both Ram Chand
2
and Lal Chand severed connections with the family and had no
connection with the property of the family. This left two branches
in the family of Mangat Ram, one being Madhav Prashad and his
descendants through his son Hari Ram, the other branch
consisted of Umrao Lal and his three sons viz., Brij Mohan,
Rameshwar and Radha Krishan. The plaintiff Bhagwat Sharan,
who filed the suit is the son of Radha Krishan and grandson of
Umrao Lal.
2. The above facts are not disputed. The parties are also ad idem
that Madhav Prashad shifted from his native village and came to
Ashok Nagar, about 70 years prior to the filing of the suit. The suit
was filed in 1988. Thus, Madhav Prashad must have shifted in or
around 1918. It is also not disputed that Madhav Prashad started
working as munshi of the then zamindar of the area and was
thereafter known as munshi Madhav Prashad. The dispute
basically starts hereinafter. The plaintiff claims that his
grandfather Umrao Lal also came to Ashok Nagar at about the
same time and started doing grain business. Thereafter, Madhav
Prashad left the work of munshi and both the brothers started grain
business in the name of “Munshi Madhav Prashad”, by setting up
a shop. The case of the plaintiff is that both Madhav Prashad and
3
Umrao Lal lived together and carried on the business jointly and
purchased various properties described in para 9 of the plaint. Six
properties comprise of six different houses. The properties at para
9(2) comprised of various agricultural lands in different villages.
The case of the plaintiff is that all these houses have been
constructed jointly by Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal, and
Madhav Prashad being the elder brother was the karta and was
running the joint family in this capacity. It was further alleged in
the plaint that Madhav Prashad being the karta managed to get
some of the joint family property recorded in his own name. It was
also alleged that after the death of Madhav Prashad and Umrao
Lal, Hari Ram, adopted son of Madhav Prashad (who had died by
the time the suit was filed in 1988) was the karta of the joint Hindu
family and in this capacity some of the properties of the Joint
Hindu Family were recorded in his name.
3. It is not disputed that Madhav Prashad died some time in the
year 1935, Umrao Singh died some time in 1941-42 and Hari Ram
died in the year 1978.
4. In respect of agricultural lands it was pleaded that all these
agricultural lands were under the joint cultivation of the family
and the full accounts of the cultivation was kept by late Madhav
4
Prashad and Umrao Lal, and after their death by Hari Ram. After
the death of Hari Ram, his widow Rajjo Devi (Def.no.6), used to
look after cultivation on behalf of the family. It was further alleged
in the plaint that Hari Ram had transferred some of the
agricultural lands in the name of his brother-in-law, son, son-inlaw and other relatives as benami transactions, which was obvious
from the fact that the General Power of Attorney was executed by
the beneficiaries of these transactions in favour of Hari Ram.
However, this fact was not revealed to the branch of the family who
were descendants of Umrao Lal. Basically, the allegation was that
all the properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint were properties
of the Hindu Undivided Family (for short HUF) and, therefore, the
plaintiff sought partition of the same by metes and bounds as per
his share.
5. For the sake of convenience it would be appropriate to extract
para 18 of the plaint which reads as follows:-
“(18) That the business of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
1 to 18 was almost joint till the year 1954. Thereafter, on
account of the loss in the business and the business coming to
a closure position almost all the people started carrying on their
separate business and the immovable properties of the joint
family remained undivided so far. Late Hari Ram sold the house
properties mentioned in para No.9(1) (c) (d) (e) (f) of the plaint
during his life time, which are liable to be reduced from there
share”
5
This suit was contested by some of the defendants who were either
in the line of descendants of Hari Ram or his beneficiaries.
Transfer documents were executed in their favour. It would be
pertinent to mention that none of the other heirs from the lineage
of Umrao Lal filed a written statement. In the written statement
filed by the contesting respondents the main objection taken was
that the properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint were not
properties of the HUF and it was denied that there ever was any
such HUF.
6. The defendants denied the fact that the business being run
under the name of “Munshi Madhav Prashad” was a joint family
business. It was denied that Umrao Lal was a member of this
business or the said shop was a joint shop. With regard to all the
properties mentioned in para 9 of the plaint, it was stated that all
the houses had been purchased/constructed by Madhav Prashad
alone and that the agricultural lands were purchased by Hari Ram
from his own income.
7. In the written statement the defendants also placed reliance
on the Will of late Hari Ram and made reference to a suit filed by
the plaintiff and defendant nos.1-3 in which they had stated that a
portion of the house had been bequeathed to them by Hari Ram by
6
his Will. It was therefore urged that the plaintiff having elected to
accept the bequest under the Will cannot now turn around and say
that the description of the properties given by Hari Ram in the Will
showing them to be his personal properties was not correct. It was
also alleged that as admitted in the plaint itself 3 out of 6 houses
were sold by Hari Ram in his lifetime.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties various issues
were framed but according to us only the following issues are
relevant which are extracted below :-
1. Whether the properties mentioned in para No.9 of the plaint
are the properties of the joint family both the sides or whether
the same are the self acquired properties as per the averments
made by the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.94-A/86 filed in the
Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Ashok Nagar, has mentioned the
Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram as the basis of the
suit?
3. If yes, Whether the plaintiff is stopped from alleging the said
Will as null and void?
4. Whether the Will dated 6.2.1987 executed by Hari Ram in
connection with the disputed property is Null and void?
The trial court decided all these issues in favour of the plaintiff and
decreed the suit holding that all the properties were joint family
properties and that plaintiff had 2.38% share in the same. The
contesting defendants filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, and the decree of partition by the trial court was set aside.
7
The plaintiff approached the High Court for review. The High Court
dismissed the application for condonation of delay, the application
for review and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence this appeal before us.
9. We have heard Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior
counsel for the appellant, Shri Harin P. Raval, learned senior
counsel for those respondents who support the appellant and Shri
Guru Krishna Kumar, Shri Vikas Singh, and Shri Anupam Lal Das,
learned senior counsel, for the contesting respondents.
10. At the outset we may note that a lot of arguments were
addressed and judgments were cited on the attributes of HUF and
the manner in which it can be constituted. In view of the facts
narrated above, in our view, a large number of these arguments
and citations need not be considered. The law is well settled that
the burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint
property of an HUF to prove the same. Reference in this behalf
may be made to the judgments of this Court in Bhagwan Dayal
vs. Reoti Devi1. Both the parties have placed reliance on the this
judgment. In this case this Court held that the general principle
is that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary
1 AIR 1962 SC 287
8
is proved. It was further held that where one of the coparceners
separated himself from other members of the joint family there was
no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to
constitute a joint family. However, it was also held that at the
same time there is no presumption that because one member of
the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint
family. However, it is important to note that this Court in
Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Ors. vs. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer
and Ors.2, it held as follows:-
“…. Except in the case of reunion, the mere fact that
separated coparceners chose to live together or act jointly
for purposes of business or trade or in their dealings with
properties, would not give them the status of coparceners
under the Mitakshara law.”
The Privy Council in Appalaswami v.
Suryanarayanamurti3 held as follows:
"The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled.
Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the
presumption that property held by any member of the
family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting
that any item of property was joint to establish the fact.
But where it is established that the family possessed some
joint property which from its nature and relative value may
have formed the nucleus from which the property in
question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the
party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively
2 (1951) 2 SCR 603
3 I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440
9
that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint
family property”
The aforesaid view was accepted by this Court in Shrinivas
Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors.4 In D.S.
Lakshmaiah and Ors. v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors.5 this
Court held as follows:
“The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no
presumption of a property being joint family property only
on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one
who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family
property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that
there was nucleus with which the joint family property
could be acquired, there would be presumption of the
property being joint and the onus would shift on the
person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove
that he purchased the property with his own funds and
not out of joint family nucleus that was available.”
Similar view was taken in Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala
Laxminarayan and Others.6 and Appasaheb Peerappa
Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade7. The law is
thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges
the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.
11. Normally, an HUF can only comprise of all the family
members with the head of the family being karta. Some property
4
(1955) 1 SCR 1
5
(2003) 10 SCC 310
6
(1960) 2 SCR 253
7
(2007) 1 SCC 521
10
has to be the nucleus for this joint family. There is cleavage of
opinion as to whether two brothers of a larger group can form a
joint family. But assuming that such a joint family could have been
formed by Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal the burden lies heavily
on the plaintiff to prove that the two of them joined together to form
an HUF. To prove this, they will have to not only show jointness
of the property but also jointness of family and jointness of living
together.
12. From the facts stated above it is apparent that there is no
pleading that Mangat Ram and Sons constituted a HUF. There is
no allegation that this family had some property as its nucleus.
Since there is no allegation that Mangat Ram and his four sons
constituted a HUF, the fact that Lal Chand left the family to live by
himself, would not in any manner mean that there was a disruption
of the joint family status. A disruption would arise only if there
was an allegation that earlier there was a HUF.
13. It is also an admitted case of the parties that Madhav Prashad
and Umrao Lal came separately to Ashok Nagar. Madhav Prashad
initially worked as a munshi with a zamindar. Thereafter, as per
the defendants, Madhav Prashad started a business which was his
own but later his brother Umrao Lal joined in the business. It is,
11
however, contended that this business was not a business of a
HUF.
14. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff is that it was
Umrao Lal who started the business and Madhav Prashad joined
him later on but since Madhav Prashad was the elder brother, the
business was started in the name of Madhav Prashad. There is no
evidence to support the claim either way. The witnesses who have
appeared were all born much later and they have not given any
evidence with regard to the joint business. The plaintiff Bhagwat
Sharan was born in the year 1951. The contesting defendants 4
and 8 are younger to him by 5 and 11 years. Therefore, the oral
testimony of these witnesses is not of any use as rightly held by the
trial court.
15. The plaintiff places great reliance on the mortgage deed by
which 5 houses were mortgaged in favour of Seth Budhmal on
01.12.1944 and 26.11.1946. It is not disputed that there were 6
houses, some single storeyed and some double storeyed in Ashok
Nagar which have been described in the plaint. Out of these
houses, one was used as dharamshala and the remaining 5 were
mortgaged on 01.12.1944 vide mortgage deed (Exh.P.28). This
mortgage deed was executed by Hari Ram, S/o Madhav Prashad,
12
and Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Das and Radha Krishan, S/o Umrao
Lal and Pop Chand and Babu Lal @ Deep Chand, minor sons of
Brij Mohan through their father and Nathu Lal minor S/o Hari
Ram, through his father and they are shown as proprietors of firm
M/s Madhav Prashad Agarwal. In the mortgage deed after
description of the 5 houses it is mentioned that these properties
are “owned and possessed by us”. Further it is mentioned that the
properties are free from all encumbrances and there are no other
sharers, and the mortgagees have full right to alienate the same.
The 5 houses were accordingly mortgaged with Seth Budhmal.
This was done with a view to pay off the loan of Krishna Ram Baldeo
Bank, with which the properties were already mortgaged. The
amount which they obtained by mortgaging the property was
transferred to the Bank and fresh mortgage was created in favour
of Seth Budhmal. In para 5 of the mortgage deed it was mentioned
that the mortgaged property is free from all encumbrances and, “we
are the absolute owners of the same and there is no co-parcener
and co-sharer”. This mortgage deed was signed by Hari Ram, Brij
Mohan, Rameshwar Lal, Radha Krishan as mortgagors. This
would indicate that these properties were owned by them.
13
16. However, there is no material on record to show that the
properties belonged to an HUF. They may have been joint
properties but merely on the basis of the recitals in the mortgage
deed they cannot be said to be a joint family property. It appears
that by another mortgage deed dated 26.11.1946, the value of the
mortgaged properties was enhanced to Rs. 45,000/-, and in
addition to the 5 houses, one oil mill at Pachhar was also
mortgaged. Seth Budhmal filed a suit (Exh.P.4) against Hari Ram,
Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Lal, Radha Krishan, Nathu Lal etc., for
realisation of the mortgage money under the said mortgage deed.
In para 6 and 8 of the plaint it was averred as follows :-
“6. That, the defendants at the time of execution of
aforesaid documents constituted a Trading Joint Hindu
Family and of which all major members personally and
minor members through their head of the branch were
represented in the execution of mortgage deeds.
8. That, minors mentioned in the documents have
now attained majority. Therefore, they have been
impleaded in person as defendants. Their liability is
limited to the extent of property of Joint Hindu Family and
personal dealing. Defendant No.1 to 3 are personally and
in the capacity of head of their branch are made in as
defendants.”
17. A written statement was filed on 09.10.1955 (Ex.P-5) on
behalf of the aforesaid Hari Ram, Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Lal,
Radha Krishan and Nathu Lal, and reply to paras 6 and 8 of the
mortgage deed, read as follows:-
14
“6. That as regards paragraph 6 of the plaint there is
no objection.
8. That, as regards paragraph 8 of the plaint the
reply is that the defendant No.6 is still minor. He has not
attained majority. It is not admitted that defendant No.1
to 3 are Head (KARTA) being wrong, nor they are the Head,
nor the mortgage transaction was made in such a capacity
and the plaintiff has no right to sue in such a manner.”
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings in the earlier suit it is
submitted that Hari Ram had admitted that there was a joint
family business when this written statement was filed and,
therefore, there is proof that the business was a joint family
business and there is no material to show that this joint family
status was ever disrupted.
18. It is submitted on behalf of the contesting respondent that
since the family members of Hari Ram were residing in the
mortgaged house, by way of abundant precaution they may have
been made to sign the mortgage deed. In our view, that may not
be true because the mortgage deed clearly reflects that all the
family members including the minors were shown to be owners of
the properties by mortgaging the same. Therefore, this property
which was mortgaged in the year 1944 and then re-mortgaged in
1946 would prima facie appear to be joint property though at this
15
stage we are not deciding whether the property is a joint property
or the property of HUF.
19. An admission made by a party is only a piece of evidence and
not conclusive proof of what is stated therein. It is in this light
that we have to examine the admission made by Hari Ram and his
brothers while filing the written statement to the suit filed by Seth
Budhmal. In paragraph 6 the averment was that the defendants
constituted trading Joint Hindu Family. It is obvious that the
admission was with regard to a trading family and not HUF. In
view of the law cited above, it is clear that not only jointness of the
family has to be proved but burden lies upon the person alleging
existence of a joint family to prove that the property belongs to the
joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that
the property is the nucleus of the joint Hindu family or that it was
purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. In our
opinion, this has not been proved in the present case. Merely
because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that
there is a Joint Hindu Family. As far as paragraph 8 is concerned
in our view there is no clear-cut admission. The allegation made
was that the minors were represented by defendant nos. 1-3, who
were head of their respective branches. In reply to this it was
16
stated that defendant nos.1-3 were neither the head or the karta,
nor the mortgage transaction was made in that capacity. This
admission cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission of there
being a joint family.
20. In Nagubai Ammal and Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao and Ors.8
which is the locus classicus on the subject it was held as follows:-
“An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the
matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the
weight to be attached to which must depend on the
circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to
be erroneous or untrue, so long as the person to whom it
was made has not acted upon it to his detriment, when it
might become conclusive by way of estoppel.”
9
It would be pertinent to mention that in Himani Alloys Ltd. vs.
Tata Steel Ltd.,
10 it was also held that the admission should be
categorical, should be conscious and deliberate act of the party
making it. As far as the present case is concerned we do not find
any clear-cut admission with regard to the existence of an HUF.
At best, from the recitals in the mortgage deed and averments in
the written statement, all that can be said is that at the relevant
period of time the property was treated to be a joint property.
8 (1956) 1 SCR 451
9 This view has been consistently followed by this Court in a large number of cases including Bharat Singh and
Anr. vs. Bhagirathi 1966 SCR (1) 606; Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120;
Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273.
10 (2011) 15 SCC 273
17
21. On the other hand, there are many other documents relied
upon by the defendants. Out of the 6 houses, 5 were mortgaged
and one is admittedly a dharamshala. Out of these 5 houses, 3
were sold by Hari Ram during his life time and during the life time
of the predecessors of the plaintiff, nobody objected to the sales of
the properties and in the sale deeds Hari Ram is described as the
sole owner of the property. One such sale deed is Exh.D-4 wherein
it is mentioned that the double storey house is the property of the
trading firm Madhav Prashad Agarwal and that Hari Ram is the
owner of the firm and in order to repay the loan, sold the house
to two persons. This sale deed was witnessed by Seth Budhmal.
Though it is not stated so in the sale deed it appears that the
amount of consideration must have been paid to Seth Budhmal.
This document was executed on 12.09.1967, and this read with
the other two sale deeds clearly indicate that Hari Ram claimed
that he was the sole proprietor of the business of the trading firm
Madhav Prashad Agarwal.
22. These sale deeds and the recitals were never challenged by
the plaintiff or his predecessors. This would indicate that the
jointness of the property if any had ceased because of some family
arrangement or partition which may have happened much earlier.
18
We have to read the sale deeds in conjunction with the averments
made in the plaint quoted hereinabove wherein the plaintiff has
stated that the business came to a closure and then almost all the
people started carrying on their separate business. Though it is
averred that the immovable properties remained the properties of
the joint family the fact that separate branches started doing
separate business is indicative of the fact that some separation, if
not, a formal partition had taken place between the parties.
23. The other important document is the Will of Hari Ram
(Exh. P-3). In this Will, Hari Ram gives details of the remaining 3
houses and mentions that these were owned by his father Madhav
Prashad and that he (Hari Ram) has been doing business in the
name of his father Munshi Madhav Prashad Agarwal. Out of the
6 houses, 3 had already been sold by Hari Ram and he has
bequeathed the remaining 3 houses to various persons. It would
be relevant to refer to the portion of the Will where Hari Ram states
that he had 3 cousins Brij Mohan, Rameshwar Lal and Radha
Krishan. Out of these, Radha Krishan died and was survived by
his widow and 3 sons and they were living in the 2nd and 3rd floor
in building No.2. Hari Ram bequeathed certain portions of the
immovable property to the widow and children of Radha Krishan.
19
It would be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff Bhagwat Sharan
is the son of Radha Krishan. He also bequeathed certain
properties in favour of his cousins Brij Mohan and Rameshwar Lal.
24. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff and defendant nos.
1-3 herein filed suit for eviction of an occupant in which he claimed
that the property had been bequeathed to him by Hari Ram.
According to the defendants the plaintiff having accepted the Will
of Hariram and having taken benefit of the same, cannot turn
around and urge that the Will is not valid and that the entire
property is a joint family property. The plaintiff and defendant nos.
1-3 by accepting the bequest under the Will elected to accept the
will. It is trite law that a party cannot be permitted to approbate
and reprobate at the same time. This principle is based on the
principle of doctrine of election. In respect of Wills, this doctrine
has been held to mean that a person who takes benefit of a portion
of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will. In
The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation and Anr. vs . Diamond and Gem Development
Corporation Ltd. and Anr11, this Court made an observation that
a party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose"
11 AIR 2013 SC 1241
20
or "approbate and reprobate". Where one party knowingly accepts
the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, it is estopped
to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or
conveyance or order.
25. The doctrine of election is a facet of law of estoppel. A party
cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Any party which
takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is
mentioned in the said document. It would be apposite to refer to
the treatise 'Equity-A course of lectures' by F.W. Maitland,
Cambridge University, 1947, wherein the learned author
succinctly described principle of election in the following terms:-
“The doctrine of Election may be thus stated: That he who
accepts a benefit under a deed or will or other instrument
must adopt the whole contents of that instrument, must
conform to all its provisions and renounce all rights that
are inconsistent with it....’’
This view has been accepted to be the correct view in Karam
Kapahi and Ors. vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and
Ors.
12. The plaintiff having elected to accept the Will of Hari Ram,
by filing a suit for eviction of the tenant by claiming that the
property had been bequeathed to him by Hari Ram, cannot now
12 (2010) 4 SCC 753
21
turn around and say that the averments made by Hari Ram that
the property was his personal property, is incorrect.
26. As far as the agricultural lands are concerned the trial court
decreed the suit in respect of the agricultural lands on the basis
that Madhav Prashad and his brother Umrao Lal and their
successors constituted an HUF. The said lands having been
bought out of the funds of the HUF would be treated to be the
property of the HUF, even though they may have been entered in
the name of any other person. In view of the above discussion,
and the fact that we have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove
that there is an HUF, we are not inclined to agree with the finding
of the trial court.
27. We now deal with each of the agricultural property
separately. The properties described in paragraph 9(2)(a) of the
plaint were earlier recorded in the name of Hari Ram and later in
the names of his sons Purushottam and Vinod. The property at
paragraph 9(2)(b) was also recorded in the name of Hari Ram and
he had given cultivation rights to Sri Ram who is stated to have
become the owner thereof. Similarly, the land described in
paragraph 9(2)(c) also was shown in the name of Hari Ram and
this was given to Kahiya Lal on tenancy. The land described in
22
paragraph 9(2)(d) was also recorded in the name of Hari Ram and
was transferred to Shiv Charan, and now stands in the name of
his legal heirs. The land described in paragraph 9(2)(e) which
stood in the name of Hari Ram was also transferred by him in the
name of his wife Rajjo Devi in 1969.
28. As far as the lands described in 9(2)(f) and 9(2)(g) are
concerned these lands were taken on lease by Nathu Lal, S/o Hari
Ram from the zamindar of Ashok Nagar. According to the plaintiffs
these lands were also lands of the joint family but that version
cannot be believed in view of the patta granted in favour of Nathu
Lal. It may be true that consideration for grant of patta may have
been paid but there is no material on record to show that this
payment was made out of the funds of HUF. It may be pertinent
to mention here that the plaintiffs have alleged that in 1951 Nathu
Lal was a minor and the amount was paid by Hari Ram. However,
no proof has been led in this regard. In fact, from the material on
record it appears that Nathu Lal was about 21 years old at that
time. He was definitely more than 18 years old and thus not a
minor. These lands were never shown to be owned by Madhav
Prashad or Umrao Lal. It is also pertinent to mention that various
parts of the land were transferred to various other persons and
23
these transfers were never challenged by the plaintiff at the
relevant time. It would also be pertinent to mention that both the
courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove that they were getting any proceeds from the income
of the agricultural land. This also indicates that the said land was
not joint.
29. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the
appeals filed by the appellant(s) and the same are dismissed with
no order as to costs. Pending application(s) if any, shall
accordingly stand disposed of.
…………………………………J.
(L. Nageswara Rao)
…………………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
April 3, 2020
