Skip to content


C. Ethirajulu Naidu, Deceased and anr. Vs. C. Govivdarajulu Naidu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.12
AppellantC. Ethirajulu Naidu, Deceased and anr.
RespondentC. Govivdarajulu Naidu and anr.
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint family--property acquired by one member--no nucleus of joint property--presumption--separate property--burden of proof. - .....a small boy and, as there was no nucleus of joint family property, must be taken to have been the father's separate property at that time. the question then is, did the father subsequently throw it into the common stock. the burden in such a case is on those who assert this: mayne, section 278, and assuming according to the appellant's case that the father lived with his son in the house and supported and married him and carried on business with him elsewhere, and even raised money for the purposes of the business by mortgaging this house, that would not, in our opinion, be enough to discharge the onus, for the father's conduct would be consistent with an intention to retain the house as his separate property, and on the other hand, we have the evidence in the father's will it was.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant is dead and one of the alienees has been brought on and allowed to support the appeal, which has otherwise abated, as regards the item in which he is interested. That item consists of a hones which was purchased by his father when he was a small boy and, as there was no nucleus of joint family property, must be taken to have been the father's separate property at that time. The question then is, did the father subsequently throw it into the common stock. The burden in such a case is on those who assert this: Mayne, Section 278, and assuming according to the appellant's case that the father lived with his son in the house and supported and married him and carried on business with him elsewhere, and even raised money for the purposes of the business by mortgaging this house, that would not, in our opinion, be enough to discharge the onus, for the father's conduct would be consistent with an intention to retain the house as his separate property, and on the other hand, we have the evidence in the father's Will it was treated as his separate property. As regards this item, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //