Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Misinterpretation of Appellate Court’s Judgment Overturned; Supreme Court Affirms Joint Family Business Existence from Inception, Not Merely Post-1991: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court in its recent judgment, overturned the High Court’s misinterpretation of facts in a family property partition dispute. The crux of the case revolved around whether the properties and the garage business were part of a joint Hindu family.

Facts and Issues: The case initiated by Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare concerned the partition and possession of properties, including agricultural lands and business ventures, against the descendants of his deceased brother, Laxmanrao. The Trial Court had recognized only agricultural land as joint property, considering other properties and the business as Laxmanrao’s self-acquisitions. This was reversed by the Appellate Court, and the High Court initially upheld this but later reviewed to exclude certain properties, based on the misunderstanding that the joint business started only post-1991.

Joint Family Business: Evidence indicated that the garage business named ‘Gajanan Automobiles’ and ‘Trimurti Auto Garage’ was a joint family business. The Supreme Court found strong evidence supporting this, contrary to the High Court’s observation that the business became joint only in 1991.

Misinterpretation of Appellate Court Judgment: The Supreme Court noted the High Court’s erroneous interpretation regarding the commencement of the joint family business, leading to an incorrect review decision.

Affidavit of Laxmanrao: The affidavit by Laxmanrao in his lifetime played a crucial role. It was stated under oath that the garage business was a joint family business, which was binding on his successors.

Property and Business Analysis: The Court found that properties where the business was run were purchased in individual names but were used for the joint business, indicating a collective family venture from the start.

Relevance under Indian Evidence Act: The Court referred to Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, underscoring the relevance of statements against proprietary interest made by a deceased person.

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court’s decision, decreeing partition and separate possession in favor of the plaintiff, and dismissed the High Court’s review order based on incorrect factual analysis.

Date of Decision: 8th April 2024

Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare vs Nanibai (Dead) through LRs and others

Similar News