Joint Hindu family property must be proved; inherited property under succession law remained self-acquired, enabling specific performance.

The party asserting joint Hindu family character must prove it; no presumption arises merely because a joint family exists, and the claimed joint family source of the 29.2/3 marlas was not satisfactorily established. Property inherited by a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is taken in his individual capacity, not as karta of a Hindu undivided family. On that basis, the 11 marlas inherited by the sons of Dula Singh remained self-acquired property, so the restriction on specific performance was unsustainable and the decree for specific performance was granted in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the property in question was proved to be Joint Hindu Family property so as to render the agreement for its sale unenforceable. (ii) Whether the 11 marlas of land inherited by the sons of Dula Singh could be treated as Joint Hindu Family property or remained self-acquired property, and whether specific performance could be granted in respect of it.

Issue (i): Whether the property in question was proved to be Joint Hindu Family property so as to render the agreement for its sale unenforceable.

Analysis: The burden to establish that a property is joint family property lies on the party asserting it. There is no presumption of joint family property merely because a joint Hindu family exists. Only when a family nucleus capable of acquiring the property is shown does the onus shift. On the evidence, the claim that the 29.2/3 marlas had been purchased from joint family income was not satisfactorily proved, and the High Court was justified in correcting the error on burden of proof rather than merely reappreciating evidence.

Conclusion: The plea that the property was Joint Hindu Family property was not established against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the 11 marlas of land inherited by the sons of Dula Singh could be treated as Joint Hindu Family property or remained self-acquired property, and whether specific performance could be granted in respect of it.

Analysis: A son inheriting property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 takes it in his individual capacity and not as karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. Since the 11 marlas had been acquired by Dula Singh from his own earnings, it was his self-acquired property and did not acquire the character of joint family property on succession. The restriction placed by the High Court on specific performance in respect of this land was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The 11 marlas were self-acquired property and specific performance could be decreed in respect of them.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the finding on joint family property failed, but the plaintiff was entitled to complete specific performance of the agreement, and the decree was accordingly granted in toto.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no presumption that property is joint Hindu family property merely because a joint family exists; the party asserting joint family character must prove it, and property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is taken by a son in his individual capacity.

---