HUF Property (Self-Acquired or Joint)

Sarojani Chandrakant Tirhekar v.
Yamunabai Sopan Zol1
As per the Hindu Law there is no dispute that the male issues do not acquire by birth alone
any interest in the separate property or self acquired property of a male Hindu whether the
property is immovable or movable. A male Hindu may acquire and possess individual or
separate property even where he is member of joint undivided family, for it is not the law that
the Hindu is incapable (while in a State or Union) of, holding any property of his own apart
from that of the family property. Hindu Law recognises separate property of individual
members of a joint family as well as of separated members. A Hindu may make a gift of his
entire property to a stranger or even disinherit by Will his sons and other heirs. The
expression, “separate property” is different from the expression “self acquired property”. The
term “separate property” is used to distinguish the individual property of a male Hindu from
the joint property of the family or rather his interest in the joint family property. A separate
property would, therefore, include property howsoever acquired so long as it is not joint
family property for one reason or another. Thus the property acquired by a male Hindu by
inheritance or gift as well as the property acquired by his labour or exertions is a separate
property. Self-acquired property, on the other hand, means a self-acquisition properly so
called Thus the property acquired by a person by his own labour or exertions is self-acquired
property, but that acquired, say, by inheritance is not. Hence self-acquired property is only
one of the forms or species of separate property. In the case of joint family with parents and
children and without any inheritance of ancestral property, it is possible that the father and
other members of the family would treat such property acquired by the father as a family
property by their own actions like cultivation etc. and if in law it has become a family
property, it cannot be willed and disposed by the father as per his choice.
1
Sarojani Chandrakant Tirhekar v. Yamunabai Sopan Zol, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 317 : (2007) 4 Mah LJ 830 :
(2007) 4 Bom CR 629 : (2007) 3 AIR Bom R 605 : 2007 AIHC 2139 at page 834.
V.D. Dhanwatey v. CIT2
The general doctrine of Hindu law is that property acquired by a karta or a coparcener with
the aid or assistance of joint family assets is impressed with the character of joint family
property. To put it differently, it is an essential feature of self-acquired property that it should
have been acquired without assistance or aid of the joint family property. The test of self-
acquisition by the karta or coparcener is that it should be without detriment to the ancestral
estate. It is therefore clear that before an acquisition can be claimed to be a separate property,
it must be shown that it was made without any aid or assistance from the ancestral or joint
family property. The principle is based on the original text of Yajnavalkya.
Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh3
We pass on to consider the next question arising in this appeal viz. whether the High Court
was right in holding that the 12 pieces of lands were joint family properties and were not the
self-acquisition of Goudappa. The case of the appellants was that these lands were self-
acquisition of Goudappa, but the respondents contended that they were joint family
properties. The law on this aspect of the case is well settled. Of course there is no
presumption that a Hindu family merely because it is joint, possesses any joint property. The
burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, therefore, in the
first instance, upon the person who claims it as coparcenary property. But if the possession of
a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a
member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. This is however subject
to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in
question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is
shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self-acquisition to
affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate.
2
V.D. Dhanwatey v. CIT, (1968) 2 SCR 62 : AIR 1968 SC 683 : (1968) 68 ITR 365.
3
Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh, (1969) 1 SCC 386 at page 390
In Appallaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti [ILR 1948 Mad 440] Sir John Beaumont observed
as follows:
“The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled. Proof of the existence of a joint
family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is
joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to
establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property
which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the
property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-
acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the
joint family property. See Babubhai Girdharlal v. Ujamlal Hargoyandas [ILR 1937 Bom 708]
; Venkataramayya v. Seshamma [ILR 1937 Mad 1012] and Vythianatha v. Varadaraja [ILR
1938 Mad 696].
D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam4
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents having failed to discharge the initial
burden of establishing that there was any nucleus in the form of any income whatsoever from
Item 2 property and no other nucleus was claimed, the burden remained on the respondents to
establish that Item 1 property was joint family property. In this view, the fact that the first
appellant has not led any evidence to establish his separate income is of no consequence
insofar as the claim of the respondents is concerned. Under these circumstances, for failure to
lead evidence, the respondents' claim of Item 1 to be joint family property would fail as
rightly held by the first appellate court.
The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family
property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to
prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves
4
D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam, (2003) 10 SCC 310 at page 317
that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be
presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it
to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and
not out of joint family nucleus that was available.
Another contention urged for the respondents was that assuming Item 1 property to be self-
acquired property of Appellant 1, he blended the said property with the joint family property
and, therefore, it has become joint family property. Assuming the respondents can be
permitted to raise such a plea without evidence in support thereof, the law on the aspect of
blending is well settled that property separate or self-acquired of a member of a joint Hindu
family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown
by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim
therein; but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be
established. From the mere fact that other members of the family were allowed to use the
property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate property was utilised out of
generosity to support persons whom the holder was not bound to support, or from the failure
to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of generosity or
kindness will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation (see Lakkireddi
Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama [AIR 1963 SC 1601 : (1964) 2 SCR 172]
and K.V. Narayanan v. K.V. Ranganandhan [(1977) 1 SCC 244] ).
In the present case, the respondents have not led any evidence on the aforesaid aspects and,
therefore, it cannot be held that the first appellant blended Item 1 property into the joint
family account.

HUF Property (Self-Acquired or Joint)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUF Property (Self-Acquired or Joint)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sarojani Chandrakant Tirhekar v.

Yamunabai Sopan Zol1

property. Self-acquired property, on the other hand, means a self-acquisition properly so

property. To put it differently, it is an essential feature of self-acquired property that it should

family property. The principle is based on the original text of Yajnavalkya.

Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh3

1938 Mad 696].

D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam4

rightly held by the first appellate court.

not out of joint family nucleus that was available.

to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of generosity or

and K.V. Narayanan v. K.V. Ranganandhan [(1977) 1 SCC 244] ).

You might also like