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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more