In Brief
A family dispute over partition of 79 agricultural properties traced to a common ancestor. The plaintiff claimed all properties were joint family assets acquired from ancestral income. The defendant contended many were self-acquisitions. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling that once ancestral income-yielding properties are proven to exist, acquisitions made during the joint family's subsistence are presumed joint property unless clearly proven otherwise. The burden of proving self-acquisition rested on the defendant. The Court affirmed the partition decree with limited exclusions for three items purchased from third parties, rejected an unregistered will due to suspicious circumstances, and dismissed the defendant's appeals.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.