Hindu family property dispute: Supreme Court upholds findings that plaintiffs failed to prove self-acquisition or absence of partition

5-Second Takeaway

The Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the Schedule B and C properties were self-acquired, or that the Schedule D properties remained unpartitioned ancestral property. It also rejected the argument that any findings against the defendants could assist the plaintiffs, since the plaintiffs had not discharged their primary burden of proof.

The dispute concerned whether certain family properties were self-acquired by the plaintiffs or remained part of joint ancestral holdings. The plaintiffs also asserted that no effective partition had taken place in relation to the Schedule D properties.

The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to support their claims with documentary or other adequate evidence. It noted that the defendants, by contrast, had shown that partition had taken place and had been acted upon.

The judgment reiterates the settled Hindu law presumption that a family is joint in food, worship and estate unless division is proved. On that basis, the burden lay on the plaintiffs to establish that the disputed properties were outside the ancestral pool, but they did not do so.

Finding no perversity or legal error in the concurrent factual findings of the courts below, the Supreme Court held those findings binding. It therefore upheld dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case as to both sets of properties.