In Family Land Disputes, Initial Burden Of Proof Is On Those Claiming Property Is Joint Hindu Property: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in Hindu family land disputes, the person claiming the property in question to be a Joint Hindu Family Property would have the initial burden of proof to establish the same.

The Court relied on Kunj Bihari v. Ganga Sahai Pande where Allahabad High Court held that “The legal proposition which emerges therefrom is that initial burden is on the person who claims that it is joint family property but after initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the party claiming that the property was self acquired and without the aid of joint family property.”

Factual Background

When Consolidation Proceedings began on the land in question, respondents raised objections on the basis of adverse possession of land and the property being a Joint Hindu Property, under Section 9 A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

The objections of the respondents were rejected by the Consolidation Officer, against which they preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by order dated 16.01.1981. It was held that adverse possession had been proven but co-tenancy on the basis of a Joint Hindu Family had not been established. Both petitioners and respondents filed revisions against this order under Section 48 of the Act of 1953.

The revisions were decided by a common judgement on 09.07.1981 which allowed the revision filed by the respondents but rejected that of the petitioners. Respondents had been allowed admittance of co-tenancy on the basis of the revenue and irrigation receipts filed by them, the veracity of which had not been disputed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court against the orders dated 16.01.1981 and 09.07.1981.

Counsel for petitioners argued that the Settlement Officer had wrongly allowed the appeal on the basis of adverse possession whereas the matter had to been seen in the light of the claim of the respondents as being co-tenure holders of a Joint Hindu Family.

It was submitted by the petitioners that the disputed property was a self-acquired property of the great-grandfather of one of the petitioners and that the property had not been purchased from the funds of a Joint Hindu Family. Further, they submitted that respondents had in fact failed to establish that the property had been purchased from such funds. It was their submission that, this being a matter of settled law, the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed that the property was purchased from the funds of a Joint Hindu Family.

Petitioners placed reliance on the judgement in Jai Narain v. D.D.C. & Ors. where it was held that presumption would only be with regard to the jointness of the family and not that any property acquired by the members of the family was a Joint Family Property. It was held that this would be a matter of evidence, not presumption.

Petitioners contended that respondents had claimed their rights to the property on the basis of a disputed Ikarnama which was alleged to have been executed between both the parties on 16.07.1940.

Per contra, counsel for respondents submitted that the revenue and irrigation receipts filed by them had been recognised by the Revisional Court in their favour. It was their submission that the Revisional Court had found that since the petitioners had not disputed the authenticity of the receipts, the same would amount to establishing the parties as co-tenure holders of the land in dispute.

Further, counsel for respondents submitted that the contention that the property in question had been acquired by one of the petitioners' great-grandfathers was untenable as he had been deleted by moving an amendment in the objection. It was their submission that the land would then belong to the great-great-grandfather, the common ancestor to both parties. Thus, they concluded that the rights would be divested to all, making the respondents co-tenure holders of the said property.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the Supreme Court, in various cases, had held that there would be no presumption that any property held by a member of a joint Hindu family would be joint family property. The burden would be on the person who asserted that a particular property was joint family property to establish that fact. However, if he were to prove that there was sufficient joint family nucleus from which the said property could have been acquired, the burden would shift to the member of the family claiming that it was his personal property.

Justice Manish Kumar held that once it was established that the property was registered in the name of the great-grandfather of one of the petitioners, there would be no question of the land being a Joint Hindu Family Property as this person was not the common ancestor to both the parties.

The Court held that the Revisional Court had erred in drawing an inference of the property being a Joint Hindu Family Property merely on the basis of possession of land revenue and irrigation receipts provided by the respondents.

“The rights as Joint Hindu Family Property owner would not accrue by mere possession of receipts in the name of one of the petitioners. The respondents had to discharge their burden of proof that the property was acquired out of nucleus of Joint Hindy Family which they never had been able to prove,” held the Court.

Further, it was found that the receipts presented by the respondents were actually in the name of one of the petitioners. The Court held that it was for the respondents to explain how they were in possession of receipts which were in the name of one of the petitioners.

“The party which files a document must explain his possession in case otherwise in the normal course entitled to have possession of such document but which are in the name of other parties,” observed the Court.

The Court also held that the claims of the respondents on the basis of the Ikarnama were untenable given that the respondents had failed to prove the authenticity of the document before the Revisional Court.

Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Ram Bahal and others v. D.D.C. And Others [WRIT - B No. - 3434 of 1981]

Click Here To Read/Download Order