Where any coparcener alleges with respect to a property that it is self-acquired but the other coparceners claim it to be joint, the onus is on the one who claims it to be self-acquired otherwise it is presumed to joint family property.
Image Source: i.ytimg.com
The presumption of jointness is not only with respect to its property but also with respect to common mess and worship. But this presumption cannot be drawn that every property in a joint family would be joint. On severance of certain members in a joint family its joint status comes to an end.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In that case if some of its members still remain joint, the burden of proof is on them. Where a coparcener earns some other property with the aid of a small fraction of joint family property, that also would be regarded as joint property irrespective of any consideration as to what amount of aid was taken from joint property. The very acquisition of the property in such cases leads to a presumption that the property turned to be joint.
Where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property.
The proportion of the nucleus itself in relation to the estate is only one factor and where this is considerable, the presumption arises that the acquisition of property made with its aid is joint family property. But the income yielding capacity of the nucleus is an equally important factor. Any property acquired by the Karta out of his own income in the name of his son will not constitute the joint family property.
Where it is established that there was sufficient nucleus of joint family out of which the property in question could have been acquired by the Karta and there was complete absence of any other source from which the Karta could have acquired them, it was held that such property constituted joint family property.