Telangana HC: Property bought in one legal heir's name without proof of self-earning falls in the joint family pool

Schedules A, C and D: The eldest son had admitted in his pleadings and in cross-examination that these properties were ancestral and that he had no objection to their partition. The Court found no evidence to disturb the trial court's findings and answered this point in the plaintiffs' favour.

The Will: The Court said that the person relying on a Will must prove it beyond reasonable suspicion. The Will was registered, its scribe proved its execution, and his cross-examination raised no suspicion. The eldest son's own admission that he was not on good terms with his mother and did not participate in her last rites, the Court said, shows that he was offended when she executed the Will in favour of the youngest son. Nothing was placed on record to disbelieve it, and a registered Will cannot be doubted unless the contrary is shown. The mother, as the wife of the original karta, had a definite share as a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that share passed to the youngest son under the Will. The Court noted that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a person who takes a transfer while a suit is pending is bound by its result, but acquires the right if the person who made the transfer had a valid and vested right when doing so.

Schedule B: The Court extracted the eldest son's cross-examination. He admitted that the joint family continued until the suit was filed, that his father died as a member of the joint family, that the father and the two brothers decided together to buy the land from the vendor, and that the price for one of the purchases was paid by the father in the presence of the Sub-Registrar, although he added that he had given his father the money just before they entered the Sub-Registrar's office. He also said that the family members signed the bank loan application together and that he had no objection to dividing the Schedule B land. Relying on Shrinivas Krishna Rao Kango, the only precedent the Court expressly relied on, the Court held that once the plaintiffs show a joint family nucleus on the date of the suit, the burden is on the member claiming self-acquisition to show how the property was acquired and from what resources. No evidence of self-earning was produced, and the cross-examination in fact pointed to joint family funds. Property bought in the name of one legal heir therefore falls into the common pool.

Order: The Court found no substantial ground to interfere with the trial court's well-reasoned findings. The appeal suit was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 1 December 1999 in O.S. No. 1 of 1994 were confirmed. There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.