Joint family funds, lis pendens, and intestate succession can defeat exclusive ownership claims over disputed property.

Admitted use of family and ancestral funds for construction can bring property into the joint family hotchpot, even if the purchase deed stands in one member's name; the article treats such evidence as defeating a claim of exclusive self-acquisition. A transfer executed during pending proceedings remains subject to lis pendens and cannot prejudice the claimant's rights without proper procedural compliance, including impleadment by the transferee. It also notes that, on intestate succession, the statutory heirs inherit according to the Hindu Succession Act, which may support a claim through a deceased heir's share. On that reasoning, the claimant was recognised as entitled to a one-fourth share in the property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit schedule 'B' property was self-acquired property or had become part of the joint family property by reason of the admitted use of family and ancestral funds; (ii) whether the gift deed executed during the pendency of the proceedings could defeat the appellant's claim; (iii) whether, on the death of the first defendant, succession under the Hindu Succession Act entitled the appellant to a share in the property.

Issue (i): Whether the suit schedule 'B' property was self-acquired property or had become part of the joint family property by reason of the admitted use of family and ancestral funds.

Analysis: The admitted evidence showed that the first defendant had received money from the appellant's husband while he was in Kuwait and had also used income from ancestral agricultural land for construction of the Sant Nagar property. The courts below had overlooked the positive admissions and had treated the property as exclusively self-acquired merely because the original purchase stood in the first defendant's name. The use of joint family or ancestral funds for construction, coupled with the admissions regarding the husband's contribution, supported the appellant's claim that the property had entered the joint family hotchpot.

Conclusion: The finding that the suit schedule 'B' property was self-acquired was set aside and the appellant's claim to a share was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the gift deed executed during the pendency of the proceedings could defeat the appellant's claim.

Analysis: A transfer made during pending litigation remains subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, and a person claiming through such transfer must properly come on record and seek leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The alleged gift deed was executed after the appellate decision, during the limitation period for further challenge, and the recital of delivery of possession was inconsistent with the appellant's continuing possession of the second floor. The transfer therefore could not prejudice the pending rights in the suit property.

Conclusion: The alleged gift deed was held to be ineffective against the appellant's claim.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the death of the first defendant, succession under the Hindu Succession Act entitled the appellant to a share in the property.

Analysis: Even assuming the property remained self-acquired, on the death of the first defendant it devolved in accordance with the statutory scheme of intestate succession. The appellant's husband and the other heirs were treated as Class I heirs, and the appellant was entitled to claim through her deceased husband's share. This provided an additional basis to disturb the concurrent rejection of her claim in respect of the 'B' schedule property.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to a 1/4th share in the suit schedule 'B' property.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings against the appellant on the 'B' schedule property were reversed, the appellant's entitlement to a one-fourth share was recognized, and the decree was directed to be drawn accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A property constructed with admitted contributions from joint family or ancestral resources, and transferred pendente lite in a manner inconsistent with existing possession and without proper procedural compliance, cannot be insulated from the claimant's rights; upon intestate succession, the statutory heirs take according to the governing succession law.

---