Hello, My father bought 2 acre land in 1998. It was in his name and we have been using this land since then. Since the price of the land has increased significantly. My father's brothers and theirs sons have put a case stating that my father bought this land while he was in joint family with the family money. They have come up after 25 years looking at the price, do they get any share in the property? How to go about it.
You have to challenge the false case on the basis of the registered sale deed on your name and also on the basis of possession and enjoyment of the property.
If your father was earning then you may collect the evidence of his earnings.
You can discuss with your advocate and proceed as suggested.
case is not maintainable on grounds and also case is barred by law and limitations.
It has to be proved by plaintiff that land was bought by father out of joint family funds
1. When your father bought the land in 1998, whether your joint family was a HUF (Hindu Undivided Family)?. In case your joint family was a HUF and if your father was a Kartha of the family and bought land in that capacity, then your father's brothers and sons can stake a claim for their share in the property.
2. However if your father had bought the property independently, without using the funds of HUF, and if his sole name has been mentioned in the sale deed, then it's your father's self acquired property. For your father's self acquired property, except his Class-1 legal heirs, others will not have any right.
3. Organise a meeting of all stakeholders and explain that it's your father's self acquired property and that your father's brothers and their sons have no right in the property. If you are agreeable settle outside the Court amicably.
- If the said land is registered in the name of your father , then it will be considered his self acquired property , and none having any right over that property.
- Hence, his brothers cannot claim any share in that property on the ground of purchase the property on the family fund.
They can’t have any share in self acquired property of your father. And if they had knowledge of the same they can’t come after 25 yrs
These cases are very common in various Courts of India. I can understand your concern in this regard. My team has dealt with various cases of such nature.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Lakshmaiah and Another Vs. L. Balasubramanyam (2003) held that the legal principle 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 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.
In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh (1997), the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
In another case of Rukhmabai Vs. Lala Laxminarayan (1960) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is a presumption in Hindu Law that a family is joint. There can be a division in status among the members of a joint Hindu family by refinement of shares which is technically called "division in status", or an actual division among them by allotment of specific property to each one of them which is described as "division by metes and bounds". A member need. not receive any share in the joint estate but may renounce his interest therein, his renunciation merely extinguishes his interest in the estate but does not affect the status of the remaining members vis- a-vis the family property, A division in status can be effected by an unambiguous declaration to become divided from the others and that intention can be expressed by any process. Though prima facie a document clearly expressing the intention to divide brings about a division in status, it is open to a party to prove that the said document was a sham or a nominal one not intended to be acted upon but was conceived and executed for an ulterior purpose. But there is no presumption that any property, whether movable or immovable, held by a member of, a joint Hindu family, is joint family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. But if he proves that there was sufficient joint family nucleus from and out of which the said property could have been acquired, the burden shifts to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property.
Therefore, in case your father’s brother and his sons are able to prove that it was joint family property and it was purchased out of family money, then the you and your father have to prove that property was purchased out of independent income. Detailed discussion is required with complete documents of the case which other side has initiated.
You may contact my secretary to connect with me for clarification.
Dear Client,
In your situation, the key issue is whether the property is classified as self-acquired or joint family property. If your father bought the land using his own funds, it is considered self-acquired property, meaning he has full ownership rights. Under Hindu law, self-acquired property cannot be claimed by other family members unless he chooses to gift or hand it down. Therefore, your father's brothers and their sons would likely have no legal claim to the property based solely on the assertion that it was purchased with joint family funds.
However, if they can prove that the land was bought with joint family money, it may be classified as joint family property, giving them a potential claim. This would require substantial evidence to support their assertion, especially after 25 years of your family using the land without contest. Relevant legal provisions include the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which states that if a property is held as joint family property, any member has rights over it, and the Partition Act, 1893, which allows for partitioning of joint family properties among co-owners.
Further, it is advisable to gather all relevant documents that establishes your father's independent purchase of the land, such as sale deeds and payment receipts. If your father's brothers file a case, prepare to defend against their claims by presenting evidence of self-acquisition and usage of the land over the years.
Hope this answers your query.
