HUF: Burden to prove jointness is on the person who claims jointness of property.

SCI: Feb:2020

HUF - Burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same - 

To prove this, they will have to not only show *jointness of the property* but *also jointness of family* and *jointness of living together* –

 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 - 

Merely because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family.

_Senior Lawyers Fraternity_
SCEJ 469: 2020

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

313 CrPC: False or non-explanation by accused no proof, no link in chain of circumstances.

The Supreme Court observed that false explanation or non-explanation of the accused to the questions posed by the court under Section 313 CrPC(power to examine accused)of the Code cannot be used as link in chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused۔ It can be used as additional circumstances when the prosecution has proved that chain of circumstances has lead to the only hypothesis that accused has commited the crime۔ Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai of SCI observed
Read more

156(3) ‏Cr.PC: ‏Magistrate ‎can ‎order ‎proper ‎investigation ‎after ‎registration ‎of ‎F۔I۔R۔

SCI 2020 Powers of magistrate  - "2. *This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC.*  If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, *or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done*  which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, *recommending change of the investigating officer* , so that a proper investigation is done in the matter.    We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions ...
Read more

Order 39, CPC: Temporary Injunction:Courts must state reason for exparte order.

Shiv Kumar Chadha versusMunicipal Corporation of Delhi 1993 SCI on Courts passing ad-interim ex-parte Orders under Order 39 CPC without recording reasons in their Orders Courts have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the reasons for passing such orders.  It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that Court has prejudged the issues involved in the suit.    According to us, this is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders.    It need not be pointed out that any opinion expressed in connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not affect any party, at the stage of the final adjudication. SCI
Read more