The Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed that, without clear documentary evidence showing self-acquisition of property by a family member, such property will be treated as joint family property devolving upon all legal heirs. The decision upholds the established legal position and confirms the requirement for substantive evidence, offering binding value for subordinate courts evaluating onus and sufficiency of proof regarding self-acquisition claims in family property disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/73/2019 of SMT MANWATI DEVI Vs DHURANDHAR SAH |
| CNR | JHHC010085862019 |
| Date of Registration | 12-03-2019 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil law; Property and Succession (Hindu) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that in the absence of any documentary evidence showing that Amir Sah had acquired the disputed property (Schedule-A) from his own income, the property cannot be treated as self-acquired. The material evidence demonstrated that the property was acquired by his father, Budhu Sah, from whom it devolved upon his three sons. Mere oral assertions and uncorroborated pleadings are insufficient to rebut the presumption of joint family property. The High Court also emphasized that pleas must be substantiated by proper evidence, and the 1st appellate court’s detailed appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence was appropriate. No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiffs (wife and daughters of Amir Sah) claimed Schedule-A property was self-acquired by Amir Sah out of his earnings as Government Forester, supported by a will; Defendants claimed property was joint family property descending from Budhu Sah, supported by documentary evidence (Kurfanama and compromise decrees); Trial court had found for plaintiffs, but appellate court reversed regarding Schedule-A, declaring it joint family property. No documentary evidence supported plaintiffs’ claim of self-acquisition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that unsubstantiated pleadings or oral assertions are insufficient to establish self-acquisition; strong documentary evidence is necessary.
- Upholds the principle that findings of fact by the appellate court, when supported by appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, are not to be interfered with in second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises.
- Cites, for ready reference, the authority that “pleading is not evidence” (Santi Priya Pal v. Mira Biswas).
- Reiterates the correct approach for subordinate courts in weighing oral vs. documentary evidence in property and succession disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court reviewed the material placed before the lower courts and found that there was no registered deed or documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs to support the claim that Amir Sah acquired Schedule-A property from his own income.
- The evidence, including Kurfanama deeds and compromise decrees (Title Suit No. 63/1962 and 100/1962), showed the property originated from Budhu Sah, not Amir Sah’s self-acquisition.
- The appellate court’s reasoning was extensively quoted, emphasizing the need for consideration of all relevant documents and placing reliance on the principle that pleadings are not evidence and must be supported by substantive proof.
- The High Court cited Supreme Court and High Court precedents on the necessity of basing findings on a proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence.
- Having found that no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants / Plaintiffs):
- Amir Sah was a government employee (Forester) and acquired Schedule-A property from his own earnings, making it self-acquired.
- The first appellate court did not appreciate the evidence or comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
- Sought application of Supreme Court precedents to support appeal.
- Admitted no registered or title deed for Schedule-A property in name of Amir Sah was produced.
Respondent (Defendants):
- Property was acquired by Budhu Sah (father of the relevant parties), making it joint family property.
- Cited documentary evidence (Kurfanama, compromise decrees) and admissions in prior suits supporting their case.
- Claimed that Schedule-B was registered in the wife’s name as a matter of family convenience, not as separate property.
- Defended registered partition deed and denied Schedule-B was purchased from the plaintiff’s stridhan.
Factual Background
The dispute arose over Schedule-A property, with the plaintiffs (Amir Sah’s widow and daughters) claiming it was self-acquired by Amir Sah through his government service. The defendants (his brothers’ heirs) contended the land was joint family property originally acquired by Budhu Sah, their father. Plaintiffs relied on oral assertions and a will, while the defendants produced documentary evidence, including Kurfanama deeds and compromise petitions from earlier title suits. The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court, after considering the evidence, ruled that Schedule-A property was joint family property and not self-acquired by Amir Sah. The second appeal was preferred only regarding Schedule-A property.
Statutory Analysis
- Order XLI Rule 31 CPC: The requirement for appellate courts to deliver reasoned judgments after consideration of the evidence was cited.
- Principles regarding the burden of proof in family property disputes: The onus is on the person who alleges self-acquisition to substantiate their claim with credible documentary evidence.
- No novel statutory interpretation or constitutional provision was invoked; the matter turned on established principles of civil procedure and evidence.
Procedural Innovations
None identified; the judgment followed standard appellate procedure and cited procedural compliance regarding appreciation of evidence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principles regarding proof of self-acquisition and appellate review affirmed.