Throwing self-acquired property into joint family stock depends on proof of conduct, not necessarily a registered deed.

A self-acquired house can become Hindu joint family property if the coparcener, on the evidence, abandoned exclusive ownership and treated it as part of the common stock before partition in interest. The Court treated this as a question of fact and assessed subsequent conduct and documents as corroborative material under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It rejected the proposition that a registered instrument is invariably required to impress self-acquired property with joint family character. On the facts, the house was found to have been thrown into the common stock, and the argument that registration was indispensable failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the self-acquired house was thrown into the common stock of the Hindu joint family, and whether such conversion required a registered instrument.

Analysis: The disputed property had been acquired by one coparcener as his separate property. The decisive question was whether, on the evidence, he had thereafter abandoned his exclusive rights and treated it as joint family property before the family became divided in interest. The Court held that the matter was one of fact and appreciation of evidence. Subsequent conduct and documents could be relied upon as corroborative material under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The authorities cited did not lay down that a registered deed was necessary in every case where self-acquired property was impressed with the character of joint family property; the more substantial question remained whether the facts proved such throwing into the common stock.

Conclusion: The house was found to have been thrown into the common stock, and the contention that a registered instrument was indispensable failed.

---