Presumption of joint Hindu family status cannot displace generations of exclusive possession; limitation also barred the claim.

The presumption of joint Hindu family status weakened with remote descent and could not override generations of undisputed exclusive possession by one branch. In the absence of reliable evidence of joint residence, worship, food, or enjoyment of the estate, the claimant had to prove a subsisting joint right; the burden did not shift to the possessors to prove exclusion. On those facts, the claimant failed to establish jointness, and the prolonged exclusion also attracted limitation. The High Court decree was set aside and the trial court decree restored with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts proved, the presumption of jointness in a Hindu family displaced long and exclusive possession by one branch so as to cast the burden on that branch to prove exclusion of the claimant's branch, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The family relationship was remote, the property had for generations remained in the exclusive possession of the defendants' line, and there was no reliable evidence of joint residence, joint worship, joint food, or joint enjoyment of estate. The presumption that a Hindu family remains joint weakens as descent becomes more remote, and it cannot override a long course of undisputed separate possession. On those facts, the burden was not on the defendants to prove exclusion; rather, the claimant had to establish a subsisting joint right. The prolonged exclusion also attracted the statutory period of limitation.

Conclusion: The presumption of joint family status was not available to the claimant on these facts, and the suit was barred by limitation. The finding was against the respondent and in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside and the decree of the trial court was restored, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A remote presumption of joint family cannot defeat generations of undisputed exclusive possession; where the claimant proves no acts of jointness, the burden does not shift to the possessors, and the claim may be barred by limitation.

---