Supreme Court clarifies burden of proof for HUF property claims: Bhagwat Sharan vs. Purushottam (2020)

Date of the Judgment: April 3, 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 289

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a property be considered part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) simply because a family business was run jointly? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a property dispute case, clarifying the evidentiary burden required to prove that a property belongs to an HUF. The court emphasized that merely having a joint family business does not automatically classify all properties as belonging to the HUF.

The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a claim by Bhagwat Sharan, grandson of Umrao Lal, seeking partition of properties, alleging they belonged to a joint Hindu family comprising Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal. Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal were brothers. Madhav Prashad had an adopted son, Hari Ram. The plaintiff claimed that Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal jointly conducted business and acquired properties, with Madhav Prashad acting as the ‘karta’ (manager) of the family. The plaintiff contended that some properties were recorded in Madhav Prashad’s name, and later in Hari Ram’s name, but these were actually HUF properties. The defendants, descendants of Hari Ram, contested the claim, asserting that the properties were self-acquired and not part of any HUF.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, decreeing that all properties were joint family properties and that the plaintiff had a 2.38% share. The contesting defendants appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which set aside the trial court’s decree. The plaintiff’s subsequent review petition was dismissed by the High Court due to delay, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several key legal principles regarding HUFs and property ownership. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that a property is part of an HUF. The court cited the following authorities:

• Bhagwan Dayal vs. Reoti Devi [AIR 1962 SC 287]: The court reiterated that while a Hindu family is presumed to be joint, there is no presumption that the remaining coparceners continue to be joint if one coparcener separates.

• Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Ors. vs. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and Ors. [(1951 ) 2 SCR 603]: The court held that separated coparceners living or acting jointly for business purposes do not automatically become coparceners under Mitakshara law.

• Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti [I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440]: The Privy Council held that proof of a joint family does not presume that property held by any member is joint. The burden is on the one asserting joint ownership. However, if it is established that the family possessed some joint property which could 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 that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property.

• Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. [(1955) 1 SCR 1]: The Supreme Court accepted the view of the Privy Council in Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti.

• D.S. Lakshmaiah and Ors. v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 310]: The court reiterated that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property just because a joint Hindu family exists. The person asserting it must prove it. However, if the person proves there was a nucleus with which the property could be acquired, the burden shifts to the person claiming self-acquired property.

• Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Others [(1960) 2 SCR 253]: The court reiterated that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.

• Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade [(2007) 1 SCC 521]: The court reiterated that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.

• Nagubai Ammal and Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao and Ors. [(1956 ) 1 SCR 451]: The court held that an admission is not conclusive and is only a piece of evidence that can be shown to be erroneous or untrue.

• Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. [(2011) 15 SCC 273]: The court held that an admission should be categorical, conscious, and a deliberate act of the party making it.

• The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Anr. vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr [AIR 2013 SC 1241]: The court observed that a party cannot be permitted to “blow hot and cold,” “fast and loose,” or “approbate and reprobate.”

• Karam Kapahi and Ors. vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Ors. [(2010) 4 SCC 753]: The court accepted the principle of election as described in ‘Equity – A course of lectures’ by F.W. Maitland, stating that one who accepts a benefit under a deed or will must adopt the whole contents of that instrument.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The plaintiff contended that Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal jointly started a grain business under the name “Munshi Madhav Prashad.”

• They argued that the properties, including houses and agricultural lands, were jointly acquired and belonged to the HUF.

• The plaintiff relied on a mortgage deed from 1944, where family members were listed as owners of the properties, to show joint ownership.

• The plaintiff also relied on an admission made in a written statement in a prior suit filed by Seth Budhmal against the family members, where they were described as a “Trading Joint Hindu Family”.

• The plaintiff argued that the agricultural lands were under joint cultivation and the accounts were maintained jointly by Madhav Prashad, Umrao Lal, and later by Hari Ram.

Defendants’ Arguments:

• The defendants argued that the properties were self-acquired by Madhav Prashad and Hari Ram, not by an HUF.

• They denied that Umrao Lal was a member of the business “Munshi Madhav Prashad” or that the shop was a joint shop.

• They relied on the Will of Hari Ram, which described the properties as his personal properties, and argued that the plaintiff, having accepted benefits under the Will, cannot claim the properties as HUF properties.

• The defendants pointed out that Hari Ram had sold three of the six houses during his lifetime, describing himself as the sole owner, without any objection from the plaintiff’s side.

• The defendants contended that the agricultural lands were purchased by Hari Ram from his own income and that the lands leased by Nathu Lal were his own, not HUF property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the properties mentioned in para No.9 of the plaint are the properties of the joint family of both 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Bhagwan Dayal vs. Reoti Devi [AIR 1962 SC 287]* to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the person claiming joint family property.
• The Court followed Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Ors. vs. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and Ors. [(1951 ) 2 SCR 603]* to clarify that joint living or business dealings do not create HUF status.
• The Court cited Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti [I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440]* to reiterate that the burden of proof shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition if a nucleus of joint property is established.
• The Court accepted the view of the Privy Council in Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti [I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440]* in Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. [(1955) 1 SCR 1]*.
• The Court followed D.S. Lakshmaiah and Ors. v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 310]* to state that there is no presumption of joint family property merely because a joint family exists.
• The Court followed Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Others [(1960) 2 SCR 253]* and Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade [(2007) 1 SCC 521]* to reiterate that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.
• The Court cited Nagubai Ammal and Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao and Ors. [(1956 ) 1 SCR 451]* to clarify that an admission is not conclusive proof but only a piece of evidence.
• The Court referred to Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. [(2011) 15 SCC 273]* to state that an admission should be categorical and deliberate.
• The Court cited The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Anr. vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr [AIR 2013 SC 1241]* to reiterate that a party cannot “approbate and reprobate”.
• The Court relied on Karam Kapahi and Ors. vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Ors. [(2010) 4 SCC 753]* to apply the doctrine of election, stating that a person accepting a benefit under a will must accept its entire content.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence presented by the plaintiff to establish the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the fact that the plaintiff had accepted the benefits under the Will of Hari Ram. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the existence of an HUF lies on the person who asserts it. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to show that the properties were acquired from a joint family nucleus or that there was a joint family living. The court also considered the fact that Hari Ram had sold some of the properties during his lifetime, claiming sole ownership, and that the plaintiff had not objected to these sales. The court also held that the plaintiff, by accepting the benefits under the Will, was estopped from challenging its validity.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to lack of evidence and the principle of estoppel. The court’s final decision was that the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties were part of an HUF and that the plaintiff was estopped from challenging Hari Ram’s Will.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The burden of proof lies on the person claiming that a property belongs to an HUF.
• The mere existence of a joint family or a joint business does not automatically create an HUF.
• There must be a nucleus of joint family property from which other properties are acquired.
• An admission is not conclusive proof but only a piece of evidence.
• A party cannot approbate and reprobate; if a party accepts a benefit under a document, they cannot challenge the document’s validity.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “The law is well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

Key Takeaways

• The burden of proving that a property belongs to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) lies on the person asserting it.
• The mere existence of a joint family or joint business does not automatically classify properties as HUF properties.
• There must be a nucleus of joint family property from which other properties are acquired to establish an HUF claim.
• An admission is not conclusive proof and can be shown to be erroneous.
• A party cannot “approbate and reprobate”; accepting benefits under a document estops one from challenging it.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the burden of proving that a property belongs to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) lies on the person asserting it. The court reiterated that the mere existence of a joint family or joint business does not automatically classify properties as HUF properties. This case reinforces the established principles of Hindu law regarding HUF and property ownership, without introducing any new doctrines or legal principles. There was no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties in question belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the existence of an HUF and that the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the Will of Hari Ram, having accepted benefits under it. This judgment clarifies the legal principles related to HUF property disputes and the burden of proof required to establish such claims.