Joint family property claim fails where ancestral nucleus is unproved and assets are shown to be self-acquired by will.

A claim that properties were joint family assets failed because the party asserting coparcenary character did not prove an ancestral nucleus or sufficient joint family surplus. The evidence instead showed acquisition through independent business and devolution by will from self-acquired property, which did not convert the assets into ancestral property. As the properties were held to be the father's self-acquired and absolute properties, the plaintiff could not seek partition, separate possession, or rely on joint possession for court fee purposes. The subsequent sale during litigation was subject to lis pendens, but non-joinder and partial partition did not assist the plaintiff, and the partition claim failed entirely.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit properties were joint family properties acquired from ancestral nucleus or the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff's father; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition, separate possession and court fee on the footing of joint possession; and (iii) whether the suit was barred by non-joinder, partial partition and whether the subsequent sale was hit by lis pendens.

Issue (i): Whether the suit properties were joint family properties acquired from ancestral nucleus or the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff's father.

Analysis: The party asserting joint family character had to prove the existence of ancestral nucleus and the availability of sufficient surplus income from which the properties could have been acquired. The evidence did not establish any ancestral nucleus or joint family funds. On the contrary, the documentary material showed that the properties were acquired through independent partnership business and that the father of the plaintiff received the properties under a will from his own father, whose properties were self-acquired. A property taken by inheritance or testamentary bequest from self-acquired property does not automatically become ancestral in the hands of the recipient.

Conclusion: The suit properties were held to be the self-acquired and absolute properties of the plaintiff's father, not joint family properties.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition, separate possession and court fee on the footing of joint possession.

Analysis: Once the properties were found to be self-acquired, the plaintiff could not claim partition as a coparcener or as one in joint possession. The evidence also showed that she was not in physical possession of the properties. The court fee paid on the basis of joint possession was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to partition, separate possession or to maintain the suit on the basis of joint possession.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit was barred by non-joinder, partial partition and whether the subsequent sale was hit by lis pendens.

Analysis: In respect of the property sold during the pendency of the suit, the transfer was subject to the outcome of the litigation and was hit by the principle of lis pendens. The court also found that the omission of other alleged sharers did not assist the plaintiff, and the plea of partial partition did not survive in view of the failure to prove joint family character of the properties. The suit, however, was not dismissed on the basis of limitation.

Conclusion: The sale was hit by lis pendens, but the plaintiff's suit still failed; the objections of non-joinder and partial partition did not entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Final Conclusion: The claim for partition failed in entirety, and the connected counterclaim also failed, leaving each side to bear its own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim for partition of alleged joint family properties, the claimant must prove the existence of ancestral nucleus and acquisition from its income; where the properties are shown to be self-acquired and later devolved by will or inheritance, they do not become coparcenary property, and partition cannot be claimed on that basis.

---