Bhagwat Sharan v. Purushottam
“Burden of Proof Lies on Person Claiming HUF Property”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving property is joint Hindu family property lies on the person who asserts it. There is no presumption of property being joint merely because a joint family exists. Also, a person who accepts benefits under a Will cannot later challenge other provisions of the same Will.
The Bottom Line
You cannot claim property is joint family property without evidence. Also, you cannot selectively accept and reject parts of a Will - this is the doctrine of election.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Formation of Mangat Ram Family
Original joint family with multiple branches established
Formation of Mangat Ram Family
Original joint family with multiple branches established
Separation of Branches
Ram Chand and Lal Chand severed ties from the family
Separation of Branches
Ram Chand and Lal Chand severed ties from the family
Will Executed
Will was executed bequeathing certain properties
Will Executed
Will was executed bequeathing certain properties
Partition Suit Filed
Bhagwat Sharan filed suit claiming HUF property share
Partition Suit Filed
Bhagwat Sharan filed suit claiming HUF property share
Trial Court Decree
Trial court granted 2.38% share to plaintiff
Trial Court Decree
Trial court granted 2.38% share to plaintiff
High Court Reversal
High Court set aside the decree
High Court Reversal
High Court set aside the decree
Supreme Court Judgment
Appeal dismissed; burden of proof principles clarified
Supreme Court Judgment
Appeal dismissed; burden of proof principles clarified
The Story
The litigation centered on partition and ownership of properties allegedly belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Bhagwat Sharan, representing the descendants of Umrao Lal, contested ownership of properties traditionally held within the Mangat Ram family of Rajasthan.
The family of Mangat Ram had several branches. Ram Chand and Lal Chand severed ties with the family and had no connection with the family property, leaving Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal as the two main branches.
Bhagwat Sharan (grandson of Umrao Lal) filed a suit claiming his share in the HUF property against the grandsons of Madhav Prashad (defendants). The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting him a 2.38% share.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside this decree, finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the property was joint family property. The Supreme Court appeal followed.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Property is joint family property
The appellant argued that the properties were traditionally held as HUF property and he was entitled to his share as a descendant of Umrao Lal.
Will invalid for HUF property
Contended that joint family property cannot be bequeathed by Will as it is not self-acquired.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Burden of proof on claimant
The respondents argued that the burden to prove property is HUF property lies on the person claiming it, and the appellant had failed to discharge this burden.
Doctrine of election applies
The appellant had earlier accepted benefits under the same Will and filed an eviction suit as legatee, so he cannot now challenge the Will.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled principle that there is no presumption of property being joint family property merely because a joint Hindu family exists. The burden is on the person asserting joint character to prove it. The Court also applied the doctrine of election against the appellant.
The burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same.
Para Para 15
Establishes the burden of proof rule clearly.
There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family.
Para Para 18
Dispels the common misconception about HUF property presumptions.
The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property.
Para Para 22
Reinforces the principle: "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" (The necessity of proof always lies upon him who affirms).
A person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will.
Para Para 25
Application of the doctrine of election.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Plaintiff's claim for share in alleged HUF property dismissed for failure to prove joint character.
Directions Issued
- Burden of proving property is HUF property lies on the person claiming so
- No presumption of joint character from mere existence of joint family
- Doctrine of election bars challenge to Will after accepting benefits under it
- Inadequate evidence led to dismissal of the claim
Key Legal Principles Established
Burden of proof for HUF property lies on the person asserting it
No presumption of joint property from existence of joint family alone
The claimant must provide clear and compelling proof
Doctrine of election prevents selective acceptance of Will provisions
A person who accepts benefits under a Will is estopped from challenging it
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Just because you are part of a joint family does not mean all property is family property
- If you claim property is joint family property, you must prove it with evidence
- If you accept benefits from a Will, you cannot later challenge that same Will
- Keep proper documentation of property ownership and family arrangements
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 35
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
“Where a person by his own act or omission or by word or conduct, leads another to believe a thing to be true, he shall not be allowed to deny its truth subsequently.”
Relevance: Basis for doctrine of election in property law.
Section 101
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.”
Relevance: General rule on burden of proof applicable to HUF property claims.
Related Cases & Precedents
Appasaheb v. Laxman
followed(1987) 2 SCC 737
Burden of proving HUF property lies on the person claiming it.
Doddamuniyappa v. Muniswamy
distinguished(2019) 7 SCC 193
Case where inherited property was proved to be joint family property.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.