Skip to main content

Hindu Joint family even if partitioned can revert back and reunite to continue the status of joint family

In R. JANAKIAMMAL vs. S.K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED), the Respondents approached the Supreme Court with the objection that a certain residential property was not part of their family's compromise settlement and that although in the name of defendant No.1 but it was acquired from joint family funds hence the appellant had also share in the property. 

The family originally had 3 branches. The Respondents objection was that after the partition dated 07.11.1960, the three branches had separated and joint family status came to end. He submitted that partition dated 07.11.1960 is the registered partnership deed which partition was accepted by trial court in its judgment. The partition of joint family of three branches having been accepted on 07.11.1960 there was no joint family when the Tatabad house property was purchased in 1979. 

The points for consideration before the Supreme Court was that as to whether at the time when the suit property was acquired by defendant No.1 whether all three branches were part of joint family or all the three branches after partition dated 07.11.1960 continued to be separate from each other.

Under Hindu Law, any member of the joint family can separate himself from joint family. The intention of the parties to terminate the status of joint family is a relevant factor to determine the status of Hindu Undivided Family. From the above, it is clear that real intendment of three branches to partition their properties was not that they did not want Hindu Undivided Family to continue rather the said partition was with object to get away from application of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The intention of the parties when they partitioned their properties in the year 1960 is a relevant fact. 

Properties admittedly were divided in three branches by the said partition. The question is as to whether after 07.11.1960, the family continued as a Joint Family or the status of joint family came to an end on 07.11.1960.

The concept of reunion in Hindu Law is well known. Hindu Joint Family even if partitioned can revert back and reunite to continue the status of joint family. The general principle is that every Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved; but this presumption can be rebutted by direct evidence or by course of conduct.

Mulla on Hindu Law, 22nd Edition, while deliberating on reunion has stated following in paragraphs 341, 342 and 343:- 

341. Who may reunite,- A reunion in estate properly so called, can only take place between persons who were parties to the original partition. It would appear from this that a reunion can take place between any persons who were parties to the original partition. Only males can reunite. 

342. Effect of reunion,- The effect of a reunion is to remit the reunited members to their former status as members of a joint Hindu family. 

343. Intention necessary to constitute reunion: To constitute a reunion, there must be an intention of the parties to reunite in estate and interest. In Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, the Supreme Court pointed out that 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. Such an agreement may be express or may be implied by the conduct of the parties. The conduct must be of an incontrovertible character and the burden lies heavily on the party who assets reunion. 

Looking at the evidences, submission, the Supreme Court decided that in the year 1979 when residential suit property was obtained in the name of defendant No.1, all three branches were part of the joint Hindu family and the house property purchased in the name of one member of joint Hindu family was for the benefit of all. When partition of all immovable and movable properties is claimed on 08.03.1981, the conclusion is irresistible that the family was joined till then. 

The Court also rejected the contention of the Respondents based on the fact that three branches were filing separate Income-Tax Returns and Wealth Tax Returns after 1967 and observed that an individual member of joint Hindu Family can very well file his separate Returns both under the Income Tax Act as well as Wealth Tax Act and filing of such Returns was not conclusive of status of the family.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more