https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198163 Under Mitakshara law, a minor coparcener's benefit from a partition cannot be inferred merely from a changing share caused by births or deaths, and family estrangement or the father's later-born sons does not itself justify partition. The partition suit was not shown to benefit the minor plaintiffs. Joint family membership alone creates no presumption that property acquired by a member is joint family property. The claimant must prove jointness, although the burden may shift upon proof of an existing joint nucleus that actually funded the acquisition. As no such nexus was established, the later-acquired properties remained the father's self-acquired property. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 1947 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198163 Under Mitakshara law, a minor coparcener's benefit from a partition cannot be inferred merely from a changing share caused by births or deaths, and family estrangement or the father's later-born sons does not itself justify partition. The partition suit was not shown to benefit the minor plaintiffs. Joint family membership alone creates no presumption that property acquired by a member is joint family property. The claimant must prove jointness, although the burden may shift upon proof of an existing joint nucleus that actually funded the acquisition. As no such nexus was established, the later-acquired properties remained the father's self-acquired property. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Jul 1947 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198163