Court dismisses plaintiff's motion for share in joint family properties due to lack of proof. Order extended.

The court dismissed the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff as they failed to prove that the properties and businesses in question were joint Hindu family properties. The plaintiff could not establish a sufficient joint family nucleus for acquiring the properties or demonstrate that the businesses were initiated with joint family funds. Additionally, the plaintiff's claim for a 1/10th share lacked supporting evidence, leading the court to conclude that the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed share. The ad interim order was extended for four weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the properties and businesses described in the plaint are joint Hindu family properties and businesses.
2. Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient joint family nucleus for acquiring the properties.
3. Whether the businesses started by the defendants were out of the joint family funds.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/10th share in the properties and businesses.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Joint Hindu Family Properties and Businesses:
The plaintiff claimed that the properties and businesses described in the plaint were joint Hindu family properties. The court analyzed whether the properties held by any member of the family were joint family properties. It was established that the burden of proof lies on the person asserting that any item of property was joint family property. The court concluded that there was no presumption that the properties and businesses were joint family properties. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the properties and businesses were acquired from the joint family nucleus.

2. Sufficient Joint Family Nucleus:
The court examined whether the plaintiff had shown sufficient joint family nucleus from which the properties could have been acquired. The plaintiff's case was based on the assertion that the father started the firm M/s. Kanayalal Rameshkumar in 1969 with joint family funds. However, the court found that the father was declared insolvent in 1973 and had no assets or income to start the business. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show any nucleus of income from the father's past business that could have been used to start the firm M/s. Kanayalal Rameshkumar.

3. Businesses Started by Defendants:
The court analyzed whether the businesses started by the defendants were out of the joint family funds. The court found that various businesses started by the defendants since 1982 were independent and self-acquired. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any profit or loss from these businesses was shared among the family members as joint family income. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not offer inspection of his income tax returns, which could have shown whether any of the properties were claimed as joint family properties.

4. Plaintiff's Entitlement to 1/10th Share:
The court examined the plaintiff's claim for a 1/10th share in the properties and businesses. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not supported by evidence. The plaintiff had not shown any distribution of profit or loss from the businesses to the family members. The court also noted that the plaintiff had claimed equal share with the first defendant in some businesses, which contradicted his claim of 1/10th share. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed share.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the properties and businesses described in the plaint were joint Hindu family properties and businesses. The court found that the plaintiff did not show sufficient joint family nucleus or that the businesses were started with joint family funds. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove his entitlement to a 1/10th share in the properties and businesses. The ad interim order was continued for four weeks.

---