In Brief
In this family dispute, the plaintiffs (nephews) sought partition and claimed certain agricultural lands (Schedules B and C) as self-acquired, while asserting a 4/9th share in ancestral lands (Schedule D). The defendant uncle and aunt contended all properties were ancestral and had been partitioned in 1993. Both the trial court and high court found the plaintiffs failed to prove self-acquisition through documentary evidence (deeds, payment proof). The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, holding that Hindu law presumes family properties are joint and ancestral absent proof to the contrary. The plaintiff bore the burden to prove self-acquisition but provided no substantive evidence. The appeal was dismissed."}
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.