AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1928 (11) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught in 1916. The case was most carefully tried by the Subordinate Judge. One cannot peruse his judgment and the relative evidence without being struck by the accuracy and minuteness of his exposition and the apparent correctness of his conclusions. 6. Had the case been considered by the High Court as one to be determined merely upon the facts proved, their Lordships do not doubt that that Court would have reached the same conclusion as the Subordinate Judge. The High Court, however, in a brief deliverance, reversed the judgment substantially upon the ground of their view as to the onus probandi in allegations as to joint family property. 7. First as to the facts. Their Lordships agree in substance with the Subordinate Judge's nar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... occurred in 1872--namely, forty-four years before the suit--and from that time the successors of Venkappa reaching down to the present appellants have continued exclusively to possess the property, and pay the judi thereof. 9. On Venkappa's death a question arose as to who was to occupy the position of police patil. Venkappa had a family, the eldest of whom, Ramappa, was dumb. But there was a younger son, Bhima, who performed the service of police patil for him. During this period and until the death of Bhima in 1878, neither the plaintiff, Tippanna, nor his father Laxmanna, raised any objection to these proceedings or put forward any claim either to the property or to any office in connection therewith. 10. Thereafter, Irawa, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the former occasion, that he had a half share of the property. 13. The Mamlatdar made an inquiry and he took his own line. Since the first appointment in 1872 the younger generation had grown up; and Yellappa of the Venkappa branch (being the adopted son of Ramappa, one of Venkappa's family) was appointed. The plaintiff in his statement shows that he consented to his own supersession and had no objection to Yellappa's appointment. This occurred in the year 1895, twenty-one years before the suit was brought. 14. It is a circumstance of note, as mentioned, that in these later transactions he made no representation of the suggestion that he had a half share in the property. Apart from these quasi administrative proceedings, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case proceeds the onus may shift from time to time. There never is any duty upon the part of the judge to be blind to facts established before him, or, as in this case, to a whole category of facts extending over a long period of time and establishing the possession of property for generations as being in one line and not in two lines: see judgment delivered by Lord Dunedin in Robinson v. National Trust Co. [1927] A.C. 515, 520. 17. It is no doubt true that there is a presumption that a Hindu family continues joint, but the sound proposition has for many years been accepted that " the strength of the presumption necessarily varies in every case. The presumption of union is stronger in the case of brothers than in the case of cousins, and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtain single line, it can never be said that it lies upon that line to establish that it was dissociated generations ago from another line which appears on the scene as a claimant and propones no facts of jointness, such as living in the same home, sharing in food or worship, or quoad estate participating in the enjoyment or fruits thereof. To put, in consequence of a stretch of the doctrine of onus, an unnatural and forced construction upon the actual facts of family life and development is not warranted either by the reason of the case or the law of India. 19. To apply these principles to the present case: The common ancestor was one Lakshmappa. He had two sons, Ramappa and Krishmappa. From the former (Ramappa) the defendants' fami....