No Partition for Disputed Properties Without Proof of Joint Family Ownership - Mere Possession Not Sufficient : Andhra Pradesh High Court

In a notable decision on property disputes within joint families, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that plaintiffs seeking partition of properties as joint family assets must provide clear evidence of joint family ownership. The court reversed a lower appellate court's order that had granted partition for certain properties (items 4 and 8) in the absence of sufficient proof, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

The case involved a dispute over family property among the heirs of Karthana Ankaiah, who passed away in 1965. Plaintiffs Karthana Jayalakshmamma and others sought partition of certain properties, asserting that these were part of the joint family estate. The defendant, however, contended that specific items in question—items 4 and 8 in the property schedule—were individually acquired by him and were not joint family assets.

The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for partition of items 4 and 8, citing a lack of evidence for joint family ownership. On appeal, the first appellate court reversed this decision, granting partition. This prompted the defendants to file a second appeal before the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The High Court highlighted that, under Hindu law, the presumption of joint family ownership does not extend automatically to all assets held by family members. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the property was acquired with joint family funds or that a family nucleus existed. In this case, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing that items 4 and 8 were acquired using joint family resources.

"Possession alone does not establish a property as part of the joint family estate," the court observed, emphasizing that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving joint family ownership.

Justice Mallikarjuna Rao noted that the first appellate court had erred by inferring joint family ownership without substantive evidence. The High Court found that the appellate court's judgment was based on assumption rather than proof, as there was no evidence that these properties were purchased with joint family funds.

The High Court clarified the limitations of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, which restricts interference to substantial questions of law. In this case, the High Court identified a substantial legal question concerning the presumption of joint family property, justifying its intervention.

The court underscored the difference between possession and ownership, noting that while the defendant held possession of items 4 and 8, this alone did not establish these properties as part of the joint family estate. Evidence of joint family ownership was required for partition.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court’s decision to dismiss the partition claim for items 4 and 8. The court ruled that without clear evidence of joint family ownership, the plaintiffs could not claim these properties as part of the joint family estate for partition purposes.

"The presumption of joint family ownership requires concrete evidence, particularly when there is no proof of a joint family nucleus," the High Court concluded.

Proof of Joint Family Ownership Required: Plaintiffs seeking partition must provide evidence of joint family funds or a family nucleus if they claim that specific properties are part of the joint family estate.
Possession Alone Is Insufficient: Holding possession of a property does not automatically imply joint family ownership under Hindu law.
Limited Scope of Second Appeal: The High Court reiterated that second appeals are limited to substantial questions of law and do not permit re-evaluation of facts unless findings are perverse or erroneous.

Date of decision: 05 November 2024