In Absence of Specific Pleading by Party about Self Acquired Suit Property, It Is Presumed To Be Joint Family Property

Case: Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam

Coram: Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar

Case No.: Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015

Court Observation: “When there is no specific plea in the written statement, presumption is that, the properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of the joint family properties and as such, they acquire the character of joint family itself.”

“However, on perusal of the written statement of the defendants, no such plea was raised before the trial Court. Further, there is no pleading that, apart from the joint family nucleus, the defendants had any independent nucleus so as to acquire any separate property in the name of the respective defendants. In the absence of specific pleadings, the documents which are now sought to be produced have no relevancy.”

“It is also an admitted fact that the joint family is having sufficient properties and it has got nucleus to acquire the properties. Under such circumstances, when there is no specific plea in the written statement, presumption is that, the properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of the joint family properties and as such, they acquire the character of joint family itself.”

“Under such circumstances, the marriage between appellant No.1(a) (Vandana) and defendant No.1/appellant No.1 is hit by Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is a void marriage. As such, appellant No.1(a) does not get any status of legally wedded wife.” “Defendant No.1/appellant No.1 (Tanaji) is entitled for 1/18th share. His 1/18th share devolves upon the plaintiffs and appellant No.1(b). Further it said, “The judgement and decree of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court. However, in view of death of appellant No.1/defendant No.1, automatically, the share of plaintiffs stand enhanced by devolution of the share of defendant No.1/appellant No.1 since he died intestate during the pendency of this appeal.”

Previous Posts

Allegation on Wife Extra Marital Affairs Doubtful and It Doesnt Harm Children: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Grant Custody of Children to Father

Labour Court Amenable To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227, Not Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Petitioner Has Reached Dot Age: Bombay HC Directs Trial Court to Complete Nonagenarians Cross-Examination Despite Respondents Transfer Plea

Mere Filing of Criminal Case by Wife, Demand for Separate House Not Cruelty: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree

Probate Shall Be Granted Only To an Executor Appointed By the Will: Gujarat High Court

Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates Supreme Court Download Judgement

Sexual Harassment at Workplaces Kerala HC Calls for Prompt Re-Constitution of Local Complaints Committee under POSH Act upon Expiry of Its Term

NEET-UG: Meghalaya HC Conditionally Affirms Single Judge Order Granting Relief to Candidate Who Missed Counselling Due To Spam Email

Grave Misconduct: Rajasthan HC Imposes 1 Lac Cost On Advocate Who Filed Original Application Without Authorization, Superimposed Sign By Xerox Machine Etc.

Keywords

Self Acquired, Suit Property