Case: Appasaheb Peerappa Chandgade Vs. Devendra Peerappa Chandgade &amp; Others

3. The case of the plaintiffAppasaheb was that all the properties mentioned above were the joint family properties and therefore, he sought partition of the said properties. The following properties formed part of schedule B which read asB(I) Agricultural lands situated within the village limits of Sadalaga, Taluka Chikodi.Sl. No.Sy.I) The joint Hindu family house properties situated at Sadalaga Taluka Chikodi.Sl. No.TMC No.Value1.Old 1736 (House)Rs. 25,000.00New 20362.Old 1846ARs. 30,000.00New 2178 (House)3.3130/2 (Open House)Rs. 10,000.004.1986 = 1644 (House)Rs. 8,000.005.1923 = 1660 (House)Rs. 9,000.006.1367 = 1193 (House)Rs. 10,000.007.1935 = 1669 (House)Rs. 5,000.00(III) Properties situated at Belgaum1.M.H. No. 203/2352,00,000.002.M.H. No. 687/1, RavivarpethRs. 1,00,000.003.M.H. No. 764/8A (Angol Mal)Rs. 1,50,000.004.M.H. No. CTS No. 1551 Open SpaceHindwadi, BelgaumRs. 30,000.00(IV) The suit undivided Hindu family business at Belgaum1.Mahaveer Trading Company, firm in theShop No. 843 in Ravivarpeth, includingCapital goods and turnoverRs. 1000.002.Indu Oil Company in Shop No. 677 firmRs. 1000.003.Trade in Oil in the name of Srikant,Ravivarpeth, BelgaumRs. 1000.00(V) The suit undivided Hindu family business at Sadalaga, Taluk Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum1.Dhanalaxmi StoresRs. 1000.002.Kiran Shop in the name and style C.S. HukeriRs. 1000.00(VI) The suit undivided Hindu family movables:1.Goods truck bearing Reg. No. MEI 7567Rs. 1,00,000.002.A car bearing Reg. No. MHH 30Rs. 60,000.003.Scooter bearing Reg. No. CTL 3597Rs. 12,000.004.Hero Honda Reg. No. CTS 7069Rs. 15,000.005.Ambassador Car bearing No. MZH 9453Rs. 50,000.006.Ambassador Car bearing No. 4334Rs. 50,000.00(VII) Share and Bank accounts.1.Two shares each worth Rs. 1,000/in PanchagangaSugar Factory lchalkarnajiRs. 2,000.002.One share in C.K.S.S. Factory worth Rs.1,000.003.Amount in Account No. in the State Bank of India,Br. Ravivarpeth BelgaumRs. 1,000.004.Amount in Amount No. in SyndicateBank branch Maruti Galli, BelgaumRs. 1,000.005.Amount in Account No. Ratnakar Bank Branch, BelgaumRs. 1,000.00(VIII)The family movables including the cooking apparatusesand utnsils etc. in Belgaum and at Sadalaga family houseRs. 10,000.00(IX)(i)Four6,00.00(ii)Two bullocksRs. 2,000.00(iii)Bullock card and Agricultural implementsRs. 1,000.00(iv)Motor pump set and pipelineRs. 10,000.00.The suit was contested by the defendants and they claimed that the properties mentioned in the suit schedule areproperties and therefore, there was no question of partition. The trial court however, decreed the suit of the plaintiff as mentioned above. Aggrieved against that order the defendants filed an appeal and in the said appeal the High Court reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit.

Reasoning:
9. So far the legal proposition is concerned, there is no gain saying that whenever a suit for partition and determination of share and possession thereof is filed, then the initial burden is on the plaintiff to show that the entire property was a joint Hindu family property and after initial discharge of the burden, it shifts on the defendants to show that the property claimed by them was not purchased out of the joint family nucleus and it was purchased independent of them. This settled proposition emerges from various decisions of this Court right from 1954on survey of the aforesaid decisions what emerges is that there is no presumption of a joint Hindu family but on the evidence if it is established that the property was joint Hindu family property and the other properties were acquired out of that nucleus, if the initial burden is discharged by the person who claims joint Hindu family, then the burden shifts to the party allegingto establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property to cogent and necessaryper the finding given by the trial court there is no two opinion that Peerappa was the main person who held various agricultural lands and out of that certain business started. But the case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was that the properties acquired by them were out of their own earnings and not out of the joint family nucleus. The trial court has found that no evidence has been produced by the defendants to substantiate that Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. wife and son of Defendant No. 1 had individual source to purchase the aforesaid properties. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has held against them. But the High Court has reversed that finding. We fail to see any justifiable reason for the High Court to have taken a contrary view in the matter. The trial court in extensive manner dealt with each subject and came to the conclusion that the properties acquired by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were notproperties as neither defendant No. 2 nor Defendant No. 3 i.e. the mother and son had any independent source of income for purchasing these properties. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had not been able to establish from evidence that they had sufficient funds out of which such properties could be purchased. The trial court in paragraph 69 of its judgment has definitely held against them. But the High Court has observed that the finding in paragraph 69 of the judgment is vague. With great respect, we do not subscribe the view taken by the Highr the finding given by the trial court there is no two opinion that Peerappa was the main person who held various agricultural lands and out of that certain business started. But the case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was that the properties acquired by them were out of their own earnings and not out of the joint family nucleus. The trial court has found that no evidence has been produced by the defendants to substantiate that Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. wife and son of Defendant No. 1 had individual source to purchase the aforesaid properties. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has held against them. But the High Court has reversed that finding. We fail to see any justifiable reason for the High Court to have taken a contrary view in the matter. The trial court in extensive manner dealt with each subject and came to the conclusion that the properties acquired by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were nots as neither defendant No. 2 nor Defendant No. 3 i.e. the mother and son had any independent source of income for purchasing these properties. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had not been able to establish from evidence that they had sufficient funds out of which such properties could be purchased. The trial court in paragraph 69 of its judgment has definitely held against them. But the High Court has observed that the finding in paragraph 69 of the judgment is vague. With great respect, we do not subscribe the view taken by the High