TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the suit was properly valued and the court fee paid was sufficient on the plaintiff's claim of possession; (ii) whether the suit property, though originally self-acquired, had been impressed with the character of HUF property; (iii) whether there had been an oral partition dated 21 July 2001; and (iv) whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property in view of the Hindu Succession Act provisions.
Issue (i): whether the suit was properly valued and the court fee paid was sufficient on the plaintiff's claim of possession.
Analysis: The plaintiff asserted constructive possession, but led no cogent evidence to support actual or constructive possession of any portion of the property. In a partition suit, court fee had to be paid on the share claimed when possession was not proved. The statutory basis applied was the court fee valuation principle under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act.
Conclusion: The suit was not properly valued and deficient court fee was payable on the one-fourth share claimed.
Issue (ii): whether the suit property, though originally self-acquired, had been impressed with the character of HUF property.
Analysis: Separate property can become joint family property if the owner voluntarily throws it into the common stock with the intention of abandoning exclusive rights. The evidence showed a declaration to the Income Tax Department, subsequent assessment of the property as HUF property over several years, and continued treatment of the property in that status. These circumstances established conscious abandonment of individual rights and blending into the HUF hotchpotch.
Conclusion: The property was held to be HUF property of the father.
Issue (iii): whether there had been an oral partition dated 21 July 2001.
Analysis: The plea of an oral partition was denied and remained unsupported by reliable evidence. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged arrangement.
Conclusion: The oral partition was not proved and the issue was decided against the defendants' denial, in favour of the plaintiff on this point.
Issue (iv): whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property in view of the Hindu Succession Act provisions.
Analysis: The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act conferred coparcenary rights on daughters and the omission of Section 23 removed the disability that earlier restricted a female heir's right to seek partition of a dwelling house. Since the suit remained pending when the amendment came into force, the plaintiff could claim the benefit of the amended law.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to claim a one-fourth share in the property.
Final Conclusion: The plaintiff succeeded in the partition suit, subject to deposit of the deficient court fee within the time granted by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: A self-acquired property is impressed with HUF character when the owner clearly and continuously abandons exclusive ownership in favour of the common stock, and a daughter can claim the benefit of the amended succession law in a pending partition suit.
TaxTMI 
