Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint - Benami property - Plaint allegations all through describe the suit properties as Joint Hindu Family properties and that they have been purchased either from the nucleus of Joint Hindu Family property or the income derived from joint family business - Properties are not described as benami in the name of..........
Hindu Law -- Joint Family property - In order to prove that property is a Joint Hindu Family Property, party asserting so, is required to prove joint nucleus which was utilized for acquisition of property...........
Hindu Law -- Joint Family Property - Proof - Inference of Joint Hindu Family Property cannot be drawn merely on the basis of possession of land revenue and irrigation receipts which are in the name of other person and one of the petitioners - Respondent has to prove that property was acquired out of nucleus of Joint Hindu Family...........
Hindu Law -- Joint family property - Partition suit - Plaintiff failed to prove that suit property was purchased out of joint family fund and further failed to establish that prior to purchase of suit property there was a nucleus - Suit property is self acquired property of grandfather of plaintiff - Plaintiffs thus, failed to prove that suit property is joint family..........
Hindu Law -- Joint Family Property - Properties purchased by Karta in his name is deemed to be out of joint family nucleus, if joint family possessed of adequate properties that were capable to generate enough income...........
Hindu Law -- Joint Family Property - Burden to prove - Burden lies upon person alleging existence of joint family to prove that property belongs to joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that property is nucleus of joint Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.102)...........
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 102 -- Burden of proof - Hindu Joint family property - Burden always lies upon whoever asserts that it was so joint to establish that fact - But, where it was established that family possessed some joint property which, from its nature and relative value, might have formed nucleus from which property in question could have been acquired, burden..........
Hindu Law -- Joint family property - Partition suit - Suit properties were ancestral joint family properties - Defendants failed to show that properties are self acquired properties - Initial burden of showing that there was a nucleus of joint family property is discharged by plaintiffs - Whereas, defendants for their part have failed to discharge the burden, which..........
Hindu law -- Joint family property - There is a presumption that if joint family property had sufficient ancestral nucleus, properties standing or acquired in the name of male members are joint family properties unless the presumption is rebutted by showing that properties are separate properties of a particular member or members in whose names properties stand or were..........
Hindu Law -- Ancestral property - Partition - If existence of ancestral family nucleus was admitted fact and if properties had not been mutated in the names of several persons, Courts below were justified in holding that family holding continue to be joint and plea of oral partition as propounded by defendants cannot be accepted...........
