RSA-434 130 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. Vijay Kumar Adarsh Aggarwal 2. Vijay Kumar Adarsh Aggarwal 1. The date when the judgment was reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4. Whether pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Second Appeals common 2. the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby following two appeals were decided: 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases 130 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: RSA Vijay Kumar Versus Adarsh Aggarwal RSA Vijay Kumar Versus Adarsh Aggarwal The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the appellant(s) Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate and Mr. Shivander Malik, Advocate -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, Second Appeals are being decided as common judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. By way of present appeal the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Court of earned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby following two appeals were decided:- i) CA No.122-2007, tilted as Vijay Kumar Vs. Adarsh Aggarwal; (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 RSA-434-2009 (O&M) …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondent RSA-435-2009 (O&M) …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondent The date when the judgment was reserved 07.11.2025 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.01.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.01.2026 only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment Not applicable. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the appellant(s) Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate and Mr. Shivander Malik, Advocate for the respondent. Vide this common order, abovementioned two Regular are being decided as both have arisen out of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Court of earned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby following two 2007, tilted as Vijay Kumar Vs. Adarsh two Regular have arisen out of , challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Court of earned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby following two 2007, tilted as Vijay Kumar Vs. Adarsh SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 3. the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 passed by the Court of learned C 4. the rights of the part No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by Late Vinod Kumar son of Telu Ram, who happened to be the predecessor parties to the present 5. pedigree table is extracted hereunder: Vijay Kumar from RSA 6. Kumar filed a suit for declaration, while assailing the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by deceased Vinod Kumar allegedly executed in the name of his two daugh respondents 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases ii) CA-197-2003, tilted as Adarsh Aggarwal Vs. Vijay Kumar; Both the aforementioned appeals were preferred against judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh. Briefly stating, the dispute in the present case relates to rights of the parties with respect to the subject property i.e. Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh and also the Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by Late Vinod Kumar son of Telu Ram, who happened to be the predecessor arties to the present lis. To understand the relationship between the parties, the pedigree table is extracted hereunder: Vinod Kumar | Vijay Kumar Anil Kumar Adarsh For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken RSA-434-2009. The appellant/ plaintiff being the son of deceased Vinod Kumar filed a suit for declaration, while assailing the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by deceased Vinod Kumar allegedly executed in the name of his two daugh respondents. In the plaint, besides assailing the validity of Will dated (O&M) & other connected cases [2] 2003, tilted as Adarsh Aggarwal Vs. Vijay Both the aforementioned appeals were preferred against judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 passed by the Court of ivil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh. Briefly stating, the dispute in the present case relates to ies with respect to the subject property i.e. Plot I, Chandigarh and also the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by Late Vinod Kumar son of Telu Ram, who happened to be the predecessor-in-interests of the To understand the relationship between the parties, the pedigree table is extracted hereunder:- Vinod Kumar Adarsh Urmil For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken The appellant/ plaintiff being the son of deceased Vinod Kumar filed a suit for declaration, while assailing the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by deceased Vinod Kumar allegedly executed in the name of his two daughters – defendants . In the plaint, besides assailing the validity of Will dated 2003, tilted as Adarsh Aggarwal Vs. Vijay Both the aforementioned appeals were preferred against judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 passed by the Court of Briefly stating, the dispute in the present case relates to ies with respect to the subject property i.e. Plot validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by Late Vinod Kumar son of interests of the To understand the relationship between the parties, the For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken The appellant/ plaintiff being the son of deceased Vinod Kumar filed a suit for declaration, while assailing the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 allegedly executed by deceased Vinod Kumar defendants- . In the plaint, besides assailing the validity of Will dated SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 21.05.1997, the ownership in possession of the area to the extent of ½ share of Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was also claimed favour of appellant/ plaintiff i.e. Vijay Kumar along with his deceased father Vinod Kumar by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 30.04.1959 and was thus claimed that the deceased Vinod Kumar, in a vide Will dated 21.05.1997. The validity of Will was also questioned being surrounded by suspicious circumstances as regards the mental and physical health of the testator, besides the place of residence as stated therein. 7. Urmil (defendant No.1) appeared and filed controverting the stand taken in the plaint. It was pleaded that Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was solely and exclusively allotted in favour of deceased Vinod Kuma of allotment in favour of appellant/ p therein was specifically denied. It was also pleaded that the appellant/ plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of the property being a trespasser. It was name of M/s Vi was also executed in favour of sole proprietor of firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and thus, the 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases 21.05.1997, the ownership in possession of the area to the extent of ½ share of Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was claimed while pleading that the same was jointly allotted in favour of appellant/ plaintiff i.e. Vijay Kumar along with his deceased father Vinod Kumar by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 30.04.1959 and was thus claimed that the deceased Vinod Kumar, in any case, had no authority to bequeath the same vide Will dated 21.05.1997. The validity of Will was also questioned being surrounded by suspicious circumstances as regards the mental and physical health of the testator, besides the place of residence as ated therein. Upon notice, the respondent / defendant No.2 along with Urmil (defendant No.1) appeared and filed controverting the stand taken in the plaint. It was pleaded that Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was solely and exclusively allotted in favour of deceased Vinod Kuma of allotment in favour of appellant/ p therein was specifically denied. It was also pleaded that the appellant/ plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of the property being a trespasser. It was stated that the allotment letter was issued in the name of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and the conveyance deed was also executed in favour of the deceased Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor of firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and thus, the (O&M) & other connected cases [3] 21.05.1997, the ownership in possession of the area to the extent of ½ share of Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was the same was jointly allotted in favour of appellant/ plaintiff i.e. Vijay Kumar along with his deceased father Vinod Kumar by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 30.04.1959 and was thus claimed that the deceased ny case, had no authority to bequeath the same vide Will dated 21.05.1997. The validity of Will was also questioned being surrounded by suspicious circumstances as regards the mental and physical health of the testator, besides the place of residence as Upon notice, the respondent / defendant No.2 along with Urmil (defendant No.1) appeared and filed a written statement controverting the stand taken in the plaint. It was pleaded that Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was solely and exclusively allotted in favour of deceased Vinod Kumar. The factum of allotment in favour of appellant/ plaintiff to the extent of ½ share therein was specifically denied. It was also pleaded that the appellant/ plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of the property being a allotment letter was issued in the nod Kumar Vijay Kumar and the conveyance deed deceased Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor of firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and thus, the 21.05.1997, the ownership in possession of the area to the extent of ½ share of Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was the same was jointly allotted in favour of appellant/ plaintiff i.e. Vijay Kumar along with his deceased father Vinod Kumar by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 30.04.1959 and was thus claimed that the deceased ny case, had no authority to bequeath the same vide Will dated 21.05.1997. The validity of Will was also questioned being surrounded by suspicious circumstances as regards the mental and physical health of the testator, besides the place of residence as Upon notice, the respondent / defendant No.2 along with written statement controverting the stand taken in the plaint. It was pleaded that Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh was solely and The factum laintiff to the extent of ½ share therein was specifically denied. It was also pleaded that the appellant/ plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of the property being a allotment letter was issued in the nod Kumar Vijay Kumar and the conveyance deed deceased Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor of firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and thus, the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 appellant/ plaintiff plot. Further, it was stated that the registered Will dated 21.05.1997 was validly executed in favour of defendants by their deceased father. With respect to the residence of deceased Vinod Kumar being mentioned as that of Solan in the Will dated 21.05.1997, that the deceased was having House No. 141 of HP Housing Board, Solan and thus used to visit and reside there and accordingly, there was no myst mentioned in the Will. 8. framed:- 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases appellant/ plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the said industrial Further, it was stated that the registered Will dated 21.05.1997 was validly executed in favour of defendants by their deceased With respect to the residence of deceased Vinod Kumar being mentioned as that of Solan in the Will dated 21.05.1997, that the deceased was having House No. 141 of HP Housing Board, Solan and thus used to visit and reside there and accordingly, there was no mystery or suspicion about the said residence been mentioned in the Will. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the WILL dated 21/05/1997 executed by Sh. Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Telu Ram is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OP 2. Whether that plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of his own half share of the Plot No.123, Industrial Area, Phase OPP 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable ?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 5. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of the objection taken in para No.8 of the preliminary objection? OPD (O&M) & other connected cases [4] no right, title or interest in the said industrial Further, it was stated that the registered Will dated 21.05.1997 was validly executed in favour of defendants by their deceased With respect to the residence of deceased Vinod Kumar being mentioned as that of Solan in the Will dated 21.05.1997, it was stated that the deceased was having House No. 141 of HP Housing Board, Solan and thus used to visit and reside there and accordingly, there ry or suspicion about the said residence been he parties, following issues were Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the WILL dated 21/05/1997 executed by Sh. Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Telu Ram is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP Whether that plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of his own half share of the Plot No.123, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh? Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not e ?OPD Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of the objection taken in para No.8 of the preliminary objection? OPD no right, title or interest in the said industrial Further, it was stated that the registered Will dated 21.05.1997 was validly executed in favour of defendants by their deceased With respect to the residence of deceased Vinod Kumar being it was stated that the deceased was having House No. 141 of HP Housing Board, Solan and thus used to visit and reside there and accordingly, there ry or suspicion about the said residence been he parties, following issues were Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the WILL dated 21/05/1997 executed by Sh. Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Telu Ram is null and void and not binding on the Whether that plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of his own half share of the Plot I, Chandigarh? Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of the objection taken in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 9. framed on 10. 12.03.2007 recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.03.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) was not proved in accordance with law by the respondent/ defendant plaintiff also failed to Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, to the extent of ½ share. It was rather recorded that the allotment of aforesaid property was in the name of sole proprietorship firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar with Vinod Kumar bei the learned trial Court despite having recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 was not proved in accordance with law yet dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff/ appellant in tot without considering his claim based on natural succession. 11. No. 122 of 2007, titled as mainly, pertained to property 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases 6. Relief.” During the pendency of case, an additional issue was framed on 7/09/2005, which is as under: “5.A Whether the WILL dated 21/05/1997 has been genuinely executed by the executant in favour of defendants No.1 & 2, If so its effect? OPD” The learned trial Court vi 12.03.2007 recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.03.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) was not proved in accordance with law by the respondent/ defendant. Further it was recorded that the also failed to prove his ownership over Industrial Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, to the extent of ½ share. It was rather recorded that the allotment of aforesaid property was in the name of sole proprietorship firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar with Vinod Kumar being its sole proprietor. However, strangely enough, the learned trial Court despite having recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 was not proved in accordance with law yet dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff/ appellant in tot without considering his claim based on natural succession. Aggrieved thereof, two appeals were preferred i.e. (i) CA No. 122 of 2007, titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. Adarsh Aggarwal pertained to the entitlement of claim property to the extent of ½ share in Industrial Plot No. 123, Industrial (O&M) & other connected cases [5] pendency of case, an additional issue was 7/09/2005, which is as under:- Whether the WILL dated 21/05/1997 has been genuinely executed by the executant in favour of defendants No.1 & 2, If so its effect? OPD” The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.03.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) was not proved in accordance with law by the . Further it was recorded that the appellant/ ship over Industrial Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, to the extent of ½ share. It was rather recorded that the allotment of aforesaid property was in the name of sole proprietorship firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar with ng its sole proprietor. However, strangely enough, the learned trial Court despite having recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 was not proved in accordance with law yet dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff/ appellant in tot without considering his claim based on natural succession. Aggrieved thereof, two appeals were preferred i.e. (i) CA Vijay Kumar Vs. Adarsh Aggarwal which, the entitlement of claim of ownership over the Industrial Plot No. 123, Industrial pendency of case, an additional issue was Whether the WILL dated 21/05/1997 has been genuinely executed by the executant in favour de judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.03.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) was not proved in accordance with law by the appellant/ ship over Industrial Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, to the extent of ½ share. It was rather recorded that the allotment of aforesaid property was in the name of sole proprietorship firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar with ng its sole proprietor. However, strangely enough, the learned trial Court despite having recorded that the execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 was not proved in accordance with law yet dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff/ appellant in toto Aggrieved thereof, two appeals were preferred i.e. (i) CA which, ownership over the Industrial Plot No. 123, Industrial SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 Area, Phase I, Chandigarh as well as regarding dismissal of his suit despite the finding upon the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 been recorded against the respon No.193 of filed so as to assail the validity of Vinod Kumar in favour of respondent/ defendant and her sister. judgment and decre 2007 preferred by Vijay Kumar appellant was dismissed, however, CA No. 193 of 2007 was allowed. Regular Second Appeals 12. dated 19.08.2008, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff submit Courts below to the effect that M proprietor of firm M/s Vinod Kumar Learned Senior counsel while referring to the allotment letter proved on record as Ex.PW1/A read with the affidavit furnished by deceased Vinod Kumar as Ex.PW1/ Vijay Kumar was and son, established that Mr. M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. 12.1 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases Area, Phase I, Chandigarh as well as regarding dismissal of his suit despite the finding upon the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 been recorded against the respondent/ defendant. Simultaneously, CA of 2007, titled as Adarsh Aggarwal Vs. Vijay Kumar filed so as to assail the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 by deceased Vinod Kumar in favour of respondent/ defendant and her sister. judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008, the appeal CA No. 122 of 2007 preferred by Vijay Kumar appellant was dismissed, however, CA No. 193 of 2007 was allowed. Hence Regular Second Appeals by the appellant Impugning the aforemention dated 19.08.2008, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that Mr. proprietor of firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was against record. Learned Senior counsel while referring to the allotment letter proved on record as Ex.PW1/A read with the affidavit furnished by deceased Vinod Kumar as Ex.PW1/C submitted Vijay Kumar was in fact a Joint Hindu , namely, Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and it was nowhere established that Mr. Vinod Kumar was M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Learned Senior counsel also point (O&M) & other connected cases [6] Area, Phase I, Chandigarh as well as regarding dismissal of his suit despite the finding upon the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 been dent/ defendant. Simultaneously, CA Adarsh Aggarwal Vs. Vijay Kumar was Will dated 21.05.1997 by deceased Vinod Kumar in favour of respondent/ defendant and her sister. Vide e dated 19.08.2008, the appeal CA No. 122 of 2007 preferred by Vijay Kumar appellant was dismissed, however, Hence, the present two separate by the appellant-plaintiff. Impugning the aforementioned judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the the findings recorded by both the r. Vinod Kumar was the sole Vijay Kumar was against record. Learned Senior counsel while referring to the allotment letter proved on record as Ex.PW1/A read with the affidavit furnished by deceased ted that the firm M/s Vinod Kumar indu Family firm consisting of father Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and it was nowhere Vinod Kumar was the sole proprietor of the firm Learned Senior counsel also pointed to the order dated Area, Phase I, Chandigarh as well as regarding dismissal of his suit despite the finding upon the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 been dent/ defendant. Simultaneously, CA was Will dated 21.05.1997 by deceased Vide e dated 19.08.2008, the appeal CA No. 122 of 2007 preferred by Vijay Kumar appellant was dismissed, however, the present two separate ed judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the the findings recorded by both the the sole Vijay Kumar was against record. Learned Senior counsel while referring to the allotment letter proved on record as Ex.PW1/A read with the affidavit furnished by deceased- that the firm M/s Vinod Kumar amily firm consisting of father Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and it was nowhere sole proprietor of the firm to the order dated SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) to submit that even the request made by transfer of plot No.12 exclusively learned Senior counsel being held to be the sole proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was never proved on record and thus the findings recorded by the Courts below counsel 21.05.1997 ( with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, read with Section Act’, as the attestation with law by Learned Senior counsel for the appellant the alleg as it never saw the light of the da death of 21.05.1997 was produced on 28.02 at the instance of the appellant thereby decreeing the suit in his fa 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) to submit that even the request made by transfer of plot No.123, Industrial Area, exclusively in his favour was declined. In v learned Senior counsel pointed out that the factum of Vinod Kumar being held to be the sole proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was never proved on record and thus the findings recorded by the Courts below to this effect were liable to be set aside. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the execution of the Will 21.05.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) was never proved on record Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, read with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 Act’, as the attestation of the Will dated 21.05.1997 with law by two attesting witnesses Learned Senior counsel for the appellant the alleged Will was being surrounded by suspicious circumstances as it never saw the light of the day for more than testator as the date of execution of the Will in question was 1997 and the testator died on 28 was produced, for the first time before the Estate Officer, 02.2000. It was thus submitted that both the appeals preferred at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff were required to be allowed thereby decreeing the suit in his favour. (O&M) & other connected cases [7] 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) to submit that even the request made by the deceased-Vinod Kumar for , Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh in his favour was declined. In view of the aforesaid, out that the factum of Vinod Kumar being held to be the sole proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was never proved on record and thus the findings recorded by the able to be set aside. Learned Senior that the execution of the Will dated proved on record in accordance Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, for short ‘1925 Act’, Indian Evidence Act,1872, for short ‘1872 dated 21.05.1997 in accordance attesting witnesses, was not proved on record. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff also pointed out that ed Will was being surrounded by suspicious circumstances for more than 02 years after the date of execution of the Will in question was the testator died on 28.08.1997 whereas, the Will for the first time before the Estate Officer, Chandigarh It was thus submitted that both the appeals preferred plaintiff were required to be allowed vour. 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) to Vinod Kumar for Chandigarh, iew of the aforesaid, out that the factum of Vinod Kumar being held to be the sole proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was never proved on record and thus the findings recorded by the able to be set aside. Learned Senior dated accordance , for short ‘1925 Act’, , for short ‘1872 in accordance was not proved on record. out that ed Will was being surrounded by suspicious circumstances the date of execution of the Will in question was the Will Chandigarh It was thus submitted that both the appeals preferred plaintiff were required to be allowed SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 13. started his submission preferred during pendency of the present appeal for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel while referring to Annexure A 31.10.2000 titled as “ initially a of appellant Urmil and Adarsh from interfering in Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase submitted I, Chandigarh being in respondents regarding the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 was although available to the appellant/ plaintiff, however, it was never claimed previous suit that subsequent suit i.e. the present one was 2 Rule 2 CPC. In support, he even refer preliminary objections under:- 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases On the other hand, learned counsel for his submissions with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 preferred during pendency of the present appeal for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel while referring to Annexure A-1 (certified copy of 2000 titled as “Vijay Kumar Vs. Urmil and Anr a suit for permanent injunction was preferred at the instance of appellant-plaintiff with a prayer for rest Urmil and Adarsh from interfering in Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase ted that even at that time, Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh being in the exclusive ownership and possession of the respondents-defendants, the cause of action to seek declaration regarding the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 was although available to the appellant/ plaintiff, however, it was never claimed vious suit. Learned Counsel for the respondents thus submitted that subsequent suit i.e. the present one was 2 Rule 2 CPC. In support, he even refer preliminary objections from the written statement “8. That a similar suit between the same parties involving the same property and same matter was filed by the plaintiff against the answering defendants and (O&M) & other connected cases [8] earned counsel for the respondent with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 preferred during pendency of the present appeal for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel while 1 (certified copy of Civil Suit No.236 dated Vijay Kumar Vs. Urmil and Anr.”) submitted that suit for permanent injunction was preferred at the instance plaintiff with a prayer for restraining his 2 sisters namely Urmil and Adarsh from interfering in his peaceful possession over Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. He, therefore, at that time, Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase ownership and possession of the he cause of action to seek declaration regarding the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 was although available to the appellant/ plaintiff, however, it was never claimed in the said Learned Counsel for the respondents thus submitted that subsequent suit i.e. the present one was clearly barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. In support, he even referred to Paragraph 8 of the from the written statement which reads as That a similar suit between the same parties involving the same property and same matter was filed by the plaintiff against the answering defendants and respondent with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 preferred during pendency of the present appeal for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel while Civil Suit No.236 dated that suit for permanent injunction was preferred at the instance raining his 2 sisters namely ver 1, Chandigarh. He, therefore, at that time, Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase ownership and possession of the he cause of action to seek declaration regarding the validity of Will dated 21.05.1997 was although available in the said Learned Counsel for the respondents thus submitted clearly barred by Order to Paragraph 8 of the ads as That a similar suit between the same parties involving the same property and same matter was filed by the plaintiff against the answering defendants and SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 preferred a under the provisions of law and thus, liable to be dismissed. 13.1. respondent PW1-Sangeeta contended of the firm record. He also contend examination Vinod Kumar who made the application for allotment property, the act and conduct of 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases the same remained pending the in the Court of Sh. Division Chandigarh and the same stands disposed of by Sh. Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh. As such the present suit by the principles u/s.10 or Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and deserves to be dismissed on this ground being hi judice and res between the parties is also pending in this Hon’ble Court involving the same property and similar facts and law points. Learned counsel therefore submitted preferred at the instance of appellant under the provisions of law and thus, liable to be dismissed. Further, learned counsel appearing respondent-defendant while relying upon Sangeeta from the office of Estate Office, UT Chandigarh ed that the factum of Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor the firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar record. He also contended that from the entire reading of cross examination of PW1 (Sangeeta), it was also established that it was Vinod Kumar who made the application for allotment property, besides even applying for its the act and conduct of Vinod Kumar (O&M) & other connected cases [9] the same remained pending the in the Court of Sh. S.K. Singla, Civil Judge, Jr. Division Chandigarh and the same stands disposed of by Sh. S.K. Singla, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh. As such the present suit by the principles u/s.10 or Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and deserves to be dismissed on this ground being hit by principles of sub judice and res-judicata. A similar suit between the parties is also pending in this Hon’ble Court involving the same property and similar facts and law points. therefore submitted that the present suit t the instance of appellant-plaintiff was clearly barred under the provisions of law and thus, liable to be dismissed. arned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant while relying upon the cross-examination of from the office of Estate Office, UT Chandigarh that the factum of Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor Vijay Kumar was duly established on that from the entire reading of cross , it was also established that it was Vinod Kumar who made the application for allotment of the subject its possession and as such from Vinod Kumar as well as from the records the same remained pending the in the S.K. Singla, Civil Judge, Jr. Division Chandigarh and the same stands S.K. Singla, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh. As such the present suit by the principles u/s.10 or Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and deserves to be dismissed on this t by principles of sub judicata. A similar suit between the parties is also pending in this Hon’ble Court involving the same property and similar facts and law points.” that the present suit plaintiff was clearly barred the examination of from the office of Estate Office, UT Chandigarh that the factum of Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor was duly established on that from the entire reading of cross- , it was also established that it was of the subject possession and as such from the records of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 the Estate Kumar being the sole proprietor was necessary fact was thus, the real allottee of plot in question. 13.2. submitted Parkash- examination in question by record. In support, learned counsel relie Ganesan through LRs. Vs. Kalanjiam and ors. 715; para 5 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder: 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases Estate Office, UT Chandigarh, it was fully established that Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor was necessary acts on behalf of firm-M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and in fact was thus, the real allottee of plot in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that from a conjoint reading of para 4 of the affidavit of Om -DW2 i.e. the attesting witness read with examination, statutory requirement of in question by the two attesting witnesses was In support, learned counsel relie Ganesan through LRs. Vs. Kalanjiam and ors. para 5 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder: “5. The appeals with regard Section 63(c) the testator Section requires execution attestation The provision and it is the alternatives acknowledgement of express provided acknowledgement Where a (O&M) & other connected cases [10] Office, UT Chandigarh, it was fully established that Vinod Kumar being the sole proprietor was acting and performing all M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and in fact was thus, the real allottee of plot in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent also that from a conjoint reading of para 4 of the affidavit of Om DW2 i.e. the attesting witness read with his cross statutory requirement of the valid attestation of the Will attesting witnesses was duly established on In support, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Ganesan through LRs. Vs. Kalanjiam and ors. 2020 (11) SCC para 5 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder:- appeals raise a pure question of law regard to the interpretation of 63(c) of the Act. The signature of testator on the will is undisputed. 63(c) of the Succession Act an acknowledgement of execution by the testator followed by the attestation of the Will in his presence. provision gives certain alternatives sufficient if conformity to one of alternatives is proved. The acknowledgement may assume the form express words or conduct or both, they unequivocally prove an acknowledgement on part of the testator. testator asks a person to attest Office, UT Chandigarh, it was fully established that Vinod acting and performing all M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and in also that from a conjoint reading of para 4 of the affidavit of Om cross- he Will established on upon the judgment of ) SCC law of of undisputed. Act of the presence. alternatives of The form both, an testator. attest SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 14. through t 15. with respect to t allegedly executed by Vinod Kumar in favour of his two daughters, namely, Urmil and Adarsh. The Will Ex.DW1/A. A perusal thereof shows that it Chand and Om Parkash bein prove the mandate of Section 63 of the 1925 Act, read with Section 68 of the 1872 Act, one of the attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash appeared as DW2. The contents of his affidavit (Ex.DW2) are 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases his Will, it he was admitting executed prescription must necessarily of the attesting two attesting signatures the same and the witnesses to them individually Will, read attested the No other argument has been addressed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone the paper-book as well as records of the case. ANALYSIS REGARDING In the present case, the alleged Will dated 21.05.1997 with respect to the subject estate (moveable and immoveable) was allegedly executed by Vinod Kumar in favour of his two daughters, namely, Urmil and Adarsh. The Will Ex.DW1/A. A perusal thereof shows that it Chand and Om Parkash being the attesting witnesses. In order to prove the mandate of Section 63 of the 1925 Act, read with Section 8 of the 1872 Act, one of the attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash appeared as DW2. The contents of his affidavit (Ex.DW2) are (O&M) & other connected cases [11] it is a reasonable inference that admitting that the Will had been by him. There is no express prescription in the statute that the testator necessarily sign the will in presence attesting witnesses only or that the attesting witnesses must put their signatures on the will simultaneously at same time in presence of each other testator. Both the attesting witnesses deposed that the testator came individually with his own signed read it out to them after which they the Will.” No other argument has been addressed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book as well as records of the case. ANALYSIS REGARDING WILL In the present case, the alleged Will dated 21.05.1997 estate (moveable and immoveable) was allegedly executed by Vinod Kumar in favour of his two daughters, namely, Urmil and Adarsh. The Will was produced on record as Ex.DW1/A. A perusal thereof shows that it was signed by Jagdish attesting witnesses. In order to prove the mandate of Section 63 of the 1925 Act, read with Section 8 of the 1872 Act, one of the attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash appeared as DW2. The contents of his affidavit (Ex.DW2) are that been express testator presence the their at other attesting came signed they I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone In the present case, the alleged Will dated 21.05.1997 estate (moveable and immoveable) was allegedly executed by Vinod Kumar in favour of his two daughters, produced on record as signed by Jagdish attesting witnesses. In order to prove the mandate of Section 63 of the 1925 Act, read with Section 8 of the 1872 Act, one of the attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash appeared as DW2. The contents of his affidavit (Ex.DW2) are SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 extracted hereunder: attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash though mentioned the sequence of signatures appended on the Will, however, failed to depose whether the testator Vinod Kumar or even other attesting witness, Jagdish Chand ever signed the Will in his presence. In t 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases extracted hereunder:- “IN THE COURT OF SH. JUDGE, J.D. VIJAY KUMAR VERSUS Evidence by way of Affidavit of Om Parkash S/o late Sh. Sant Ram, Village Dharampur, Teh. Kasauli, Distt. Solan, H.P. I, the above named deponent do affirm and declare as under: 1. That I was know to late Vinod Kumar. 2. That the Will dated 21.5.97 was prepared by Sh. Davinder Thakur. Advocate. 3. That I had signed the Will dated 21.5.97 as one of the witness. 4. That first of all late Sh. Vinod Kumar the will after that Sh. Jagdish had signed the will and at last I had signed the Will as one of the witness. CHANDIGARH Dated: 13. Nov 2006 VERIFICATION: Verified that the contents of my above said affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. CHANDIGARH Dated: 13. Nov 2006” A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit shows that attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash though mentioned the sequence of signatures appended on the Will, however, failed to depose whether the testator Vinod Kumar or even other attesting witness, Jagdish Chand ever signed the Will in his presence. In t (O&M) & other connected cases [12] IN THE COURT OF SH.J.S. BHINDER, CIVIL JUDGE, J.D. CHANDIGARH. VERSUS URMILA & ORS. Affidavit of Om Parkash S/o late Village Dharampur, Teh. Kasauli, the above named deponent do solemnly affirm and declare as under:- That I was know to late Vinod Kumar. That the Will dated 21.5.97 was prepared by Sh. Davinder Thakur. Advocate. That I had signed the Will dated 21.5.97 as one of That first of all late Sh. Vinod Kumar had signed the will after that Sh. Jagdish had signed the will and at last I had signed the Will as one of the Sd/-Om Parkash (Deponent) Verified that the contents of my above said and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been Sd/-Om Parkash (Deponent) A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit shows that the attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash though mentioned the sequence of signatures appended on the Will, however, failed to depose whether the testator Vinod Kumar or even other attesting witness, Jagdish Chand ever signed the Will in his presence. In t Affidavit of Om Parkash S/o late Village Dharampur, Teh. Kasauli, solemnly That the Will dated 21.5.97 was prepared by Sh. That I had signed the Will dated 21.5.97 as one of had signed the will after that Sh. Jagdish had signed the will and at last I had signed the Will as one of the (Deponent) Verified that the contents of my above said and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been Om Parkash (Deponent) the attesting witness, namely, Om Parkash though mentioned the sequence of signatures appended on the Will, however, failed to depose whether the testator Vinod Kumar or even other attesting witness, Jagdish Chand ever signed the Will in his presence. In the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 absence thereof, neither it was established on record that he ever saw the testator having signed the Will in question or even the other attesting witness having attested the signatures of the testator on the Will. Be that as it may, in his cross even went on to state that Vinod Kumar in his presence. In such circumstances, from the deposition of DW2, neither the attestation of the signatures of testator on the Will by Vinod Kumar; nor the attes was proved on record. execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) in terms of Section 63 of the 1925 Act read with Section 68 of the 1882 Act was not proved on record. Consequently, keeping in mind the case in hand, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganeshan’s the present case. 16. about non once the application preferred at the instance of respondent/ defendant seeking permission to lead additional evidence stands rejected and in the absence of any su written statement, the suit in hand preferred at the instance of appellant/ plaintiff cannot be held to be non 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases absence thereof, neither it was established on record that he ever saw the testator having signed the Will in question or even the other attesting witness having attested the signatures of the testator on the Will. Be that as it may, in his cross-exami even went on to state that Vinod Kumar in his presence. In such circumstances, from the deposition of DW2, neither the attestation of the signatures of testator on the Will by Vinod Kumar; nor the attestation by other witness was proved on record. Thus, it can be safely recorded that the legal and valid execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) in terms of Section 63 of the 1925 Act read with Section 68 of the 1882 Act was not proved on record. Consequently, keeping in mind the case in hand, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Ganeshan’s case (supra), was not applicable to the facts of the present case. As regards the plea raised by about non-maintainability of suit being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, once the application preferred at the instance of respondent/ defendant seeking permission to lead additional evidence stands rejected and in the absence of any su written statement, the suit in hand preferred at the instance of appellant/ plaintiff cannot be held to be non (O&M) & other connected cases [13] absence thereof, neither it was established on record that he ever saw the testator having signed the Will in question or even the other attesting witness having attested the signatures of the testator on the examination, DW2 Om Parkash even went on to state that Vinod Kumar-testator did not sign the Will in his presence. In such circumstances, from the deposition of DW2, neither the attestation of the signatures of testator on the Will by tation by other witness-Jagdish Chand Thus, it can be safely recorded that the legal and valid execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) in terms of Section 63 of the 1925 Act read with Section 68 of the 1882 Act was not proved on record. Consequently, keeping in mind the peculiar facts of the case in hand, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the upra), was not applicable to the facts of regards the plea raised by respondent/ defendant maintainability of suit being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, once the application preferred at the instance of respondent/ defendant seeking permission to lead additional evidence stands rejected and in the absence of any such specific plea raised in the written statement, the suit in hand preferred at the instance of appellant/ plaintiff cannot be held to be non-maintainable under Order absence thereof, neither it was established on record that he ever saw the testator having signed the Will in question or even the other attesting witness having attested the signatures of the testator on the nation, DW2 Om Parkash testator did not sign the Will in his presence. In such circumstances, from the deposition of DW2, neither the attestation of the signatures of testator on the Will by Jagdish Chand Thus, it can be safely recorded that the legal and valid execution of Will dated 21.05.1997 (Ex.DW1/A) in terms of Section 63 of the 1925 Act read with Section 68 of the 1882 Act was not proved peculiar facts of the case in hand, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the upra), was not applicable to the facts of respondent/ defendant maintainability of suit being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, once the application preferred at the instance of respondent/ defendant seeking permission to lead additional evidence stands ch specific plea raised in the written statement, the suit in hand preferred at the instance of maintainable under Order SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 2 Rule 2 CPC. ANALYSIS REGARDING OWNERSHIP IN POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY 17. whether the appellant that he owned and possessed Area, Phase thereof. 18. Conveyance Deed dated 28.11.1960 Ex. P1/B along with depositions of the appellant Office Chandigarh (PW1) it is clear that the property allotted in Kumar and not to any individual. It Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that by virtue of affidavit by Vinod Kumar (deceased) date was established that Hindu family firm’ consisting of father and son, being proprietor of Hindu Steel Fabrication Corporation. It was further mentioned in the affidavit that Vinod family as well as the natural guardian of his son Vijay Kumar and hence, was authorized to execute the conveyance deed on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son. 18.1. 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases 2 Rule 2 CPC. ANALYSIS REGARDING OWNERSHIP IN POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY The next question for consideration before whether the appellant-plaintiff was entitled he owned and possessed half share of Plot no. 123, Industrial Area, Phase -I, Chandigarh alongwith his father as an all From perusal of the allotment letter Ex. PW 2/40 and Conveyance Deed dated 28.11.1960 Ex. P1/B along with depositions of the appellant-Vijay Kumar (PW2) and Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate Office Chandigarh (PW1) it is clear that the property allotted in the name of proprietorship firm Kumar and not to any individual. It Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that by virtue of affidavit by Vinod Kumar (deceased) date was established that the firm Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar Hindu family firm’ consisting of father and son, being proprietor of Hindu Steel Fabrication Corporation. It was further mentioned in the affidavit that Vinod was the manager and Karta of the joint family as well as the natural guardian of his son Vijay Kumar and hence, was authorized to execute the conveyance deed on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son. In Hindu law, general principle is th (O&M) & other connected cases [14] ANALYSIS REGARDING OWNERSHIP IN POSSESSION OF SUIT for consideration before this Court is plaintiff was entitled for declaration to the effect half share of Plot no. 123, Industrial alongwith his father as an allottee From perusal of the allotment letter Ex. PW 2/40 and Conveyance Deed dated 28.11.1960 Ex. P1/B along with depositions Vijay Kumar (PW2) and Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate Office Chandigarh (PW1) it is clear that the property concerned was proprietorship firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and not to any individual. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that by virtue of affidavit by Vinod Kumar (deceased) dated 29.11.2005 Ex. PW 1/C, the firm Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was a ‘Joint Hindu family firm’ consisting of father and son, being proprietor of Hindu Steel Fabrication Corporation. It was further mentioned in the s the manager and Karta of the joint Hindu family as well as the natural guardian of his son Vijay Kumar and hence, was authorized to execute the conveyance deed on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son. In Hindu law, general principle is that every Hindu family ANALYSIS REGARDING OWNERSHIP IN POSSESSION OF SUIT this Court is declaration to the effect half share of Plot no. 123, Industrial ottee From perusal of the allotment letter Ex. PW 2/40 and Conveyance Deed dated 28.11.1960 Ex. P1/B along with depositions Vijay Kumar (PW2) and Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate concerned was M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that by virtue of d 29.11.2005 Ex. PW 1/C, it s a ‘Joint Hindu family firm’ consisting of father and son, being proprietor of Hindu Steel Fabrication Corporation. It was further mentioned in the Hindu family as well as the natural guardian of his son Vijay Kumar and hence, was authorized to execute the conveyance deed on his own at every Hindu family SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. A Hindu Undivided Family ( persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, including their wives and unmarried daughters automatically exists by law and is primarily recognized for tax purposes, while a Joint Hindu Family Firm is a business entity formed by members of a HUF depicting as to commerce, governed by Hindu L Logically, for a Joint Hindu Family firm to exist, it is necessary to establish the business was being run by the said HUF in form of Family Firm. While every Hindu Family enjoys presumption of being joint, no such presumption attaches to a existence positive evidence. Thus, the mere averment in Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family firm is not sufficient to afford it the status of being one in the humble opinion of this Court. Also, since Joint Hindu Family firm is merely a bus their business and does not enjoy any separate legal existence per se, the appellant was required to prove that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was no cogent evidence 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. A Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter “HUF”) is a family that consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, including their wives and unmarried daughters; is automatically exists by law and is primarily recognized for tax purposes, while a Joint Hindu Family Firm is a business entity formed by members of a HUF depicting as to commerce, governed by Hindu Law, with the Karta making decisions. Logically, for a Joint Hindu Family firm to exist, it is necessary to establish the existence of HUF and then the business was being run by the said HUF in form of Family Firm. While every Hindu Family enjoys presumption of being no such presumption attaches to a existence thereof must be proved on record thoroughly by leading positive evidence. Thus, the mere averment in Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family firm is not sufficient to afford it the status of being one in the humble opinion of this Court. Also, since Joint Hindu Family firm is merely a business style under which HUF operates their business and does not enjoy any separate legal existence per se, the appellant was required to prove that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was a business run by his Hindu Undivided Family no cogent evidence has been led by appellant, rather the contention (O&M) & other connected cases [15] is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. A Hindu ) is a family that consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, including their is a family-based entity that automatically exists by law and is primarily recognized for tax purposes, while a Joint Hindu Family Firm is a business entity formed by members of a HUF depicting as to how that family unit conducts aw, with the Karta making decisions. Logically, for a Joint Hindu Family firm to exist, it is necessary to first the existence of HUF and then only it has to be proved tht the business was being run by the said HUF in form of a Hindu Joint Family Firm. While every Hindu Family enjoys presumption of being no such presumption attaches to a Hindu Joint business and be proved on record thoroughly by leading positive evidence. Thus, the mere averment in the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family firm is not sufficient to afford it the status of being one in the humble opinion of this Court. Also, since Joint Hindu iness style under which HUF operates their business and does not enjoy any separate legal existence per se, the appellant was required to prove that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay run by his Hindu Undivided Family, for which has been led by appellant, rather the contention is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. A Hindu ) is a family that consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, including their based entity that automatically exists by law and is primarily recognized for tax purposes, while a Joint Hindu Family Firm is a business entity formed that family unit conducts aw, with the Karta making decisions. first only it has to be proved tht Hindu Joint Family Firm. While every Hindu Family enjoys presumption of being Hindu Joint business and be proved on record thoroughly by leading the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family firm is not sufficient to afford it the status of being one in the humble opinion of this Court. Also, since Joint Hindu iness style under which HUF operates their business and does not enjoy any separate legal existence per se, the appellant was required to prove that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay for which has been led by appellant, rather the contention SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 of the appellant that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar is a Joint Hindu Family firm in name of only two people Vijay Kumar (son) is contradictory to the possibility of the same being run by a HUF as both the facts cannot exist simultaneously. 19. 23rd edition, at page 338, it is written that: 19.1. essentially a corporate unit made by 2 members of the joint family consisting of father Vinod Kumar and claimed by the appellant, however, such recognition under the Hindu l whereby some members of joint family have formed a separate unit 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases of the appellant that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar is a Joint Hindu Family firm in name of only two people Vijay Kumar (son) is contradictory to the possibility of the same being n by a HUF as both the facts cannot exist simultaneously. Further, in Hindu Law, by Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, 23rd edition, at page 338, it is written that: “As long as a family remains an undivided family, two or more members of it, whether they different branches, or of one and the same branch of the family, can have no legal existence as a separate independent unit; but all the members of a branch or of a sub-branch, can form a distinct and separate corporate unit within the large hold property as such. However, the law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches or even to a single branch, as a corporate unit. Any acquisition of property by some such persons could them only as co-sharers or co property would pass by inheritance and not survivorship.” In the present case, M/s essentially a corporate unit made by 2 members of the joint family consisting of father Vinod Kumar and claimed by the appellant, however, such recognition under the Hindu law. Then, in such circumstances, whereby some members of joint family have formed a separate unit (O&M) & other connected cases [16] of the appellant that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar is a Joint Hindu Family firm in name of only two people – Vinod Kumar (father) and Vijay Kumar (son) is contradictory to the possibility of the same being n by a HUF as both the facts cannot exist simultaneously. Further, in Hindu Law, by Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, 23rd edition, at page 338, it is written that: “As long as a family remains an undivided family, two or more members of it, whether they are members of different branches, or of one and the same branch of the family, can have no legal existence as a separate independent unit; but all the members of a branch or branch, can form a distinct and separate corporate unit within the larger corporate family and hold property as such. However, the law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches or even to a single branch, as a corporate unit. Any acquisition of property by some such persons could be held by sharers or co-tenants and the property would pass by inheritance and not s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar is essentially a corporate unit made by 2 members of the joint family consisting of father Vinod Kumar and his minor son Vijay Kumar as claimed by the appellant, however, such a corporate unit holds no aw. Then, in such circumstances, whereby some members of joint family have formed a separate unit of the appellant that M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar is a Joint Hindu Vinod Kumar (father) and Vijay Kumar (son) is contradictory to the possibility of the same being Further, in Hindu Law, by Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, “As long as a family remains an undivided family, two are members of different branches, or of one and the same branch of the family, can have no legal existence as a separate independent unit; but all the members of a branch or branch, can form a distinct and separate r corporate family and hold property as such. However, the law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches or even to a single branch, as a corporate unit. Any acquisition of be held by tenants and the property would pass by inheritance and not Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar is essentially a corporate unit made by 2 members of the joint family minor son Vijay Kumar as corporate unit holds no aw. Then, in such circumstances, whereby some members of joint family have formed a separate unit SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 by themselves, the discussion by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhagwan Dayal v Reoti Devi relevance members who have acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement whereunder it was acquired. The relevant portion thereof is extracted hereunder: 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases by themselves, the discussion by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhagwan Dayal v Reoti Devi reported relevance wherein it was held that the rights inter members who have acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement whereunder it was acquired. The relevant portion thereof is extracted hereunder: “Ordinarily, the manager, or by consent, expre implied, of the members of the family, any other member or members can carry on business or acquire property, subject to the limitations laid down by the said law, for or on behalf of the family. Such business or property would be the business or property of the family. The identity of the members of the family is not completely lost in the family. One or more members of that family can start a business or acquire property without the aid of the joint family property, but such business or acquisition his or their acquisition. The business so started or property so acquired can be thrown into the common stock or blended with the joint family property in which case the said property becomes the estate of the joint family. But he or they need not which case the said property would be his or their self-acquisition, and succession to such property would be governed not by the law of joint, family but only by the law of inheritance. In such a case, if a property was jointly acquired by them governed by the law of joint family; for Hindu law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches, or even to a (O&M) & other connected cases [17] by themselves, the discussion by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of reported as AIR 1962 SC 287 finds the rights inter-se between the members who have acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement whereunder it was acquired. The relevant portion thereof is extracted hereunder:- Ordinarily, the manager, or by consent, express or implied, of the members of the family, any other member or members can carry on business or acquire property, subject to the limitations laid down by the said law, for or on behalf of the family. Such business or property would be the business or perty of the family. The identity of the members of the family is not completely lost in the family. One or more members of that family can start a business or acquire property without the aid of the joint family property, but such business or acquisition would be his or their acquisition. The business so started or property so acquired can be thrown into the common stock or blended with the joint family property in which case the said property becomes the estate of the joint family. But he or they need not do so, in which case the said property would be his or their acquisition, and succession to such property would be governed not by the law of joint, family but only by the law of inheritance. In such a case, if a property was jointly acquired by them, it would not be governed by the law of joint family; for Hindu law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches, or even to a by themselves, the discussion by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of finds se between the members who have acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement whereunder it was acquired. The relevant ss or implied, of the members of the family, any other member or members can carry on business or acquire property, subject to the limitations laid down by the said law, for or on behalf of the family. Such business or property would be the business or perty of the family. The identity of the members of the family is not completely lost in the family. One or more members of that family can start a business or acquire property without the aid of the joint family would be his or their acquisition. The business so started or property so acquired can be thrown into the common stock or blended with the joint family property in which case the said property becomes the estate of do so, in which case the said property would be his or their acquisition, and succession to such property would be governed not by the law of joint, family but only by the law of inheritance. In such a case, if a , it would not be governed by the law of joint family; for Hindu law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches, or even to a SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 19.2. Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) dated 29.11.2005 stating the M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a joint Hindu family firm, no evidence has been brought on record to establish the nature of the said arrangement. From the deposition of PW1 Miss Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate Office, Chandigarh, it had come forth document on record in her office case file showing any letter pad or letterhead or Partnership Deed or Memorandum of Articles of Association of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. No such document produced before this Court either by the app claim. Further, entity by some members of the joint family coupled with the fact that there is a severe lack of evidence to ascertain the nature of M/s 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases single branch, as a corporate unit. Therefore, the rights inter se between the membe acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement where under it was acquired, the concept of joint tenancy known to English law with the right of survivorship is unknown to Hindu law except in regard to cases specially The acquisitions made by the members of different branches jointly cannot be impressed with the incidents of joint family property. They can only be co sharers or co-tenants, with the result that their properties pass by inheritance and n survivorship.” A perusal of the record shows that besides the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) dated 29.11.2005 stating the M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a joint Hindu family firm, no evidence has been brought on record to establish the nature of the said arrangement. From the deposition of PW1 Miss Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate Office, Chandigarh, it had come forth document on record in her office case file showing any letter pad or letterhead or Partnership Deed or Memorandum of Articles of Association of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. No such document produced before this Court either by the app claim. Further, since the law does not recognize entity by some members of the joint family coupled with the fact that there is a severe lack of evidence to ascertain the nature of M/s (O&M) & other connected cases [18] single branch, as a corporate unit. Therefore, the rights inter se between the members who have acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement where under it was acquired, the concept of joint tenancy known to English law with the right of survivorship is unknown to Hindu law except in regard to cases specially recognized by it. The acquisitions made by the members of different branches jointly cannot be impressed with the incidents of joint family property. They can only be co tenants, with the result that their properties pass by inheritance and not by A perusal of the record shows that besides the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) dated 29.11.2005 (Exhibit PW1/C stating the M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a joint Hindu family firm, no evidence has been brought on record to establish the nature of the said arrangement. From the deposition of PW1 Miss Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate Office, Chandigarh, it had come forth that there was no document on record in her office case file showing any letter pad or letterhead or Partnership Deed or Memorandum of Articles of Association of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. No such document was produced before this Court either by the appellant to establish nce the law does not recognize a separate corporate entity by some members of the joint family coupled with the fact that there is a severe lack of evidence to ascertain the nature of M/s single branch, as a corporate unit. Therefore, the rs who have acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement where under it was acquired, the concept of joint tenancy known to English law with the right of survivorship is unknown to Hindu law recognized by it. The acquisitions made by the members of different branches jointly cannot be impressed with the incidents of joint family property. They can only be co- tenants, with the result that their ot by A perusal of the record shows that besides the affidavit of Exhibit PW1/C) stating the M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a joint Hindu family firm, no evidence has been brought on record to establish the nature of the said arrangement. From the deposition of PW1 Miss Sangeeta, that there was no document on record in her office case file showing any letter pad or letterhead or Partnership Deed or Memorandum of Articles of was ellant to establish his separate corporate entity by some members of the joint family coupled with the fact that there is a severe lack of evidence to ascertain the nature of M/s SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar on Joint Hindu Family firm. It is pertinent to mention here that it has not been claimed or proved to be a partnership firm either, rather the status of the firm remains ambiguous. 20. M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family Firm, the question as to whether the appellant is also the proprietor of the same still needs to be addressed. A perusal of the record shows that no estate document stated him to be a proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar rather, all the documents related to the property in question, addressed by the Estate Office, Chandigarh including the allotment letter, possession letter, copy of n were in individual name of the appellant. Even the order dated 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) declining the request made by the decea property in question in his favour, appellant as it whatsoever and as such, cannot be colored with the assumption that the reason for decli other proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. 20.1. 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar on record, the same is not proved to be a Joint Hindu Family firm. It is pertinent to mention here that it has not been claimed or proved to be a partnership firm either, rather the status of the firm remains ambiguous. However, even though the appellan M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family Firm, the question as to whether the appellant is also the proprietor of the same still needs to be addressed. A perusal of the record shows that no estate document was appended b him to be a proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar rather, all the documents related to the property in question, addressed by the Estate Office, Chandigarh including the allotment letter, possession letter, copy of notice for misuse of the suit name of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and not in the individual name of the appellant. Even the order dated 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) declining the request made by the deceased Vinod Kumar for transfer of the property in question in his favour, does not come to the rescue of the appellant as it was a simple denial whatsoever and as such, cannot be colored with the assumption that the reason for declining the request was due to appellant being the other proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Furthermore, Ms. Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate officer, (O&M) & other connected cases [19] record, the same is not proved to be a Joint Hindu Family firm. It is pertinent to mention here that it has not been claimed or proved to be a partnership firm either, rather the status of the firm remains ambiguous. However, even though the appellant has failed to prove M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family Firm, the question as to whether the appellant is also the proprietor of the same still needs to be addressed. A perusal of the record shows that appended by the appellant that clearly him to be a proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar rather, all the documents related to the property in question, addressed by the Estate Office, Chandigarh including the allotment letter, otice for misuse of the suit property etc. name of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and not in the individual name of the appellant. Even the order dated 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) declining the sed Vinod Kumar for transfer of the does not come to the rescue of the s a simple denial without citing any reason whatsoever and as such, cannot be colored with the assumption that ning the request was due to appellant being the other proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Furthermore, Ms. Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate officer, record, the same is not proved to be a Joint Hindu Family firm. It is pertinent to mention here that it has not been claimed or proved to be a partnership firm either, rather the t has failed to prove M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family Firm, the question as to whether the appellant is also the proprietor of the same still needs to be addressed. A perusal of the record shows that clearly him to be a proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar rather, all the documents related to the property in question, addressed by the Estate Office, Chandigarh including the allotment letter, property etc. name of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and not in the individual name of the appellant. Even the order dated 09.08.1985 passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh (Ex.PW2/72) declining the sed Vinod Kumar for transfer of the does not come to the rescue of the without citing any reason whatsoever and as such, cannot be colored with the assumption that ning the request was due to appellant being the Furthermore, Ms. Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate officer, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 Chandigarh (PW1) in her deposition ha partnership dated 05.09.1962 was submitted with them which was executed between Vinod Kumar, Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass and in para 2 of the said partnership deed, it has been mentioned that Vinod Kumar Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. She ha not say whether the affidavit exhibit PW 1/C was considered or not while issuing the allotment letter and conveyance deed. It noticed here that there by the appellant that directly describe concern deposition made by Ms. Sangeeta who appeared as appellant plaintiff’s own witness him to be the proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Since the appellant property, onus able to discharge the not inclined towards interfering with the learned Courts below holding Mr. Vinod Kumar to be the sole proprietor of 21. concerned is a Joint Hindu Family Property, in law, though the family might be joint, yet there is no presumption that the property owned by 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases Chandigarh (PW1) in her deposition ha partnership dated 05.09.1962 was submitted with them which was executed between Vinod Kumar, Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass and in para 2 of the said partnership deed, it has been mentioned that Vinod Kumar was the sole propri Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. She had say whether the affidavit exhibit PW 1/C was considered or not while issuing the allotment letter and conveyance deed. It here that there was not a sing by the appellant that directly describe concern M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar coupled with the overall deposition made by Ms. Sangeeta who appeared as appellant plaintiff’s own witness, did not inspire confidence of this Court to hold him to be the proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Since the appellant was the one asserting himself to be the owner of the suit property, onus was on him to prove the same and he able to discharge the burden. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined towards interfering with the learned Courts below holding Mr. Vinod Kumar to be the sole proprietor of firm M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Now, with respect to the concerned is a Joint Hindu Family Property, in law, though the family might be joint, yet there is no presumption that the property owned by (O&M) & other connected cases [20] Chandigarh (PW1) in her deposition had stated that a Deed of partnership dated 05.09.1962 was submitted with them which was executed between Vinod Kumar, Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass and in para 2 of the said partnership deed, it has been s the sole proprietor of concern M/ further admitted that she could say whether the affidavit exhibit PW 1/C was considered or not while issuing the allotment letter and conveyance deed. It may be s not a single positive document annexed by the appellant that directly described him to be the proprietor of Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar coupled with the overall deposition made by Ms. Sangeeta who appeared as appellant e confidence of this Court to hold him to be the proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Since the s the one asserting himself to be the owner of the suit s on him to prove the same and he was not been Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined towards interfering with the concurrent finding of the learned Courts below holding Mr. Vinod Kumar to be the sole M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. the contention as to the property concerned is a Joint Hindu Family Property, in law, though the family might be joint, yet there is no presumption that the property owned by stated that a Deed of partnership dated 05.09.1962 was submitted with them which was executed between Vinod Kumar, Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass and in para 2 of the said partnership deed, it has been M/s ould say whether the affidavit exhibit PW 1/C was considered or not may be le positive document annexed him to be the proprietor of Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar coupled with the overall deposition made by Ms. Sangeeta who appeared as appellant- e confidence of this Court to hold him to be the proprietor of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Since the s the one asserting himself to be the owner of the suit not been Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is concurrent finding of the learned Courts below holding Mr. Vinod Kumar to be the sole contention as to the property concerned is a Joint Hindu Family Property, in law, though the family might be joint, yet there is no presumption that the property owned by SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 any member or members of the joint family is property of Hindu joint family. The mem must prove by cogent and convincing evidence. The counsel for both the parties have relied upon various authorities and principles, the most relevant decisions are extracted hereafter for the convenience. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Purushottam (SC) 2020(2) AIR Supreme Court 2361 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases any member or members of the joint family is property of Hindu joint family. The member asserting the property to be joint family property, must prove by cogent and convincing evidence. The counsel for both the parties have relied upon various authorities and principles, the most relevant decisions are extracted hereafter for the convenience. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Purushottam (SC) 2020(2) AIR Supreme Court 2361 “The Privy Council in Suryanarayanamurti, I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440 follows: "The Hindu law upon this aspect of the settled. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. B 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 aforesaid view was accepted by this Court in Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 1 and Ors. v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 310 this Court held as follows: "The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property (O&M) & other connected cases [21] any member or members of the joint family is property of Hindu joint ber asserting the property to be joint family property, must prove by cogent and convincing evidence. The counsel for both the parties have relied upon various authorities and principles, the most relevant decisions are extracted hereafter for the sake of convenience. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwat Sharan v. Purushottam (SC) 2020(2) AIR Supreme Court 2361 has held that: The Privy Council in Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti, I.L.R. 1948 Mad.440 held as "The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But 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 on to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint The aforesaid view was accepted by this Court Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 1 In D.S. Lakshmaiah . v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors. (2003) 10 this Court held as follows: "The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property any member or members of the joint family is property of Hindu joint ber asserting the property to be joint family property, must prove by cogent and convincing evidence. The counsel for both the parties have relied upon various authorities and principles, the sake of Bhagwat Sharan v. has held that: Appalaswami v. held as case is well settled. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was ut 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 on to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint The aforesaid view was accepted by this Court Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji D.S. Lakshmaiah . v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors. v. L. Balasubramanyam and Ors. (2003) 10 "The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 Also, in Goli Supreme Court 1722 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available." Similar view was taken in Laxminarayan and 253 and Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade (2007) 1 SCC 521. The law is thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.” Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, A.P. 1970 Supreme Court 1722 it was held that: “6. To pronounce on the question of law presented for our decision, we must first examine what is the true scope of the doctrine of throwing into the 'common stock' or 'common hotchpot'. It must be remembered that a Hindu family is not a creature of a contract. As observed by this Court in v. Desai Mallappa, (1961)3 SCR 779 of throwing into common stock inevitably postulates that the owner of a separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. The existence of a coparcenary (O&M) & other connected cases [22] only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. rts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and uld shift on the person who claims it to be acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available." Similar view was taken in Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala and Others. (1960) 2 SCR Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade (2007) 1 SCC 521. The law is thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same.” Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, A.P. 1970 AIR it was held that:- To pronounce on the question of law presented for our decision, we must first examine what is the true scope of the doctrine of throwing into the 'common r 'common hotchpot'. It must be remembered that a Hindu family is not a creature of a contract. As observed by this Court in Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa, (1961)3 SCR 779 that the doctrine of throwing into common stock inevitably postulates that the owner of a separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. The existence of a coparcenary only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. rts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and uld shift on the person who claims it to be acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala (1960) 2 SCR Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade (2007) 1 SCC 521. The law is thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu AIR To pronounce on the question of law presented for our decision, we must first examine what is the true scope of the doctrine of throwing into the 'common r 'common hotchpot'. It must be remembered that a Hindu family is not a creature of a contract. As Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai that the doctrine of throwing into common stock inevitably postulates that the owner of a separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. The existence of a coparcenary SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 21.1. property is 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases is absolutely necessary before a coparcener can t into the common stock his self acquired properties. The separate property of a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him into the common stock with the intention of a separate claim therein. The separate property of a Hindu ceases to be a separate property and acquires the characteristic of a joint family or ancestral property not by any physical mixing with his joint family or ancestral property but by hi by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as separate property. The act by which the coparcener throws his separate property to the common stock is a unilateral act. There is no question of either the family rejecting or accepting it. By his individual volition he renounces his individual right in that property and treats it as a property of the family. No longer he declares his intention to treat his self acquired property as that of the joint family property, t assumes the character of joint family property. The doctrine of throwing into the common stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. When a coparcener throws his separate property into the common stock, he makes no gift Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act. In such a case there is no donor or donee. Further no question of acceptance of the property thrown into the common stock arises.” The conspectus of the above pronouncements is that a property is rendered to be Joint Family property when: (O&M) & other connected cases [23] is absolutely necessary before a coparcener can throw into the common stock his self acquired properties. The separate property of a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein. The separate property of a Hindu ceases to be a separate property and acquires the characteristic of a joint family or ancestral property not by any physical mixing with his joint family or ancestral property but by his own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as separate property. The act by which the coparcener throws his separate property to the common stock is a unilateral act. There is no question of either the family ecting or accepting it. By his individual volition he renounces his individual right in that property and treats it as a property of the family. No longer he declares his intention to treat his self acquired property as that of the joint family property, the property assumes the character of joint family property. The doctrine of throwing into the common stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. When a coparcener throws his separate property into the common stock, he makes no gift under Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act. In such a case there is no donor or donee. Further no question of acceptance of the property thrown into the common The conspectus of the above pronouncements is that a rendered to be Joint Family property when: - hrow into the common stock his self acquired properties. The separate property of a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him into the bandoning his separate claim therein. The separate property of a Hindu ceases to be a separate property and acquires the characteristic of a joint family or ancestral property not by any physical mixing with his joint family or s own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as separate property. The act by which the coparcener throws his separate property to the common stock is a unilateral act. There is no question of either the family ecting or accepting it. By his individual volition he renounces his individual right in that property and treats it as a property of the family. No longer he declares his intention to treat his self acquired property he property assumes the character of joint family property. The doctrine of throwing into the common stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. When a coparcener throws his separate property under Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act. In such a case there is no donor or donee. Further no question of acceptance of the property thrown into the common The conspectus of the above pronouncements is that a SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 First, where a member, having acquired property in his individual capacity, voluntarily throws such property into the common stock or hotchpot of the joint family, with a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon his exclusive ownership therein. Such conduct must unmistakably show the intention of the holder of self property to waive his separate rights and to blend the property with the joint family estate. Second, when investment for a business activity which enabled comes from the joint family nucleus with a clear understanding and intention that though the business is separate, it joint family property. In either eventuality, it is imp that the person acquiring the property family, and that there exist acquired property could be blended. There must exist a common hotchpot, originating from a joint f into which the self 21.2 Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Famil to throw the property in question in Rather, it has been deposed by Ms. Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate that in the Deed of partnership dated 05.09.1962, executed between Vinod Kumar, Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass, Vinod Kumar is 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases First, where a member, having acquired property in his individual capacity, voluntarily throws such property into the common stock or hotchpot of the joint family, with a clear and unequivocal intention to on his exclusive ownership therein. Such conduct must unmistakably show the intention of the holder of self property to waive his separate rights and to blend the property with the joint family estate. Second, when investment for a business ty which enabled the acquisition of separate property from the joint family nucleus with a clear understanding and intention that though the business is separate, it joint family property. In either eventuality, it is imp that the person acquiring the property family, and that there exists coparcenary property with which the self acquired property could be blended. There must exist a common hotchpot, originating from a joint family nucleus or ancestral property, into which the self-acquired property is alleged to have been thrown. In the present case, mere averment in the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be a Joint Hindu Family firm is not enough to construe that he to throw the property in question in Rather, it has been deposed by Ms. Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate that in the Deed of partnership dated 05.09.1962, executed between Vinod Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass, Vinod Kumar is (O&M) & other connected cases [24] First, where a member, having acquired property in his individual capacity, voluntarily throws such property into the common stock or hotchpot of the joint family, with a clear and unequivocal intention to on his exclusive ownership therein. Such conduct must unmistakably show the intention of the holder of self-acquired property to waive his separate rights and to blend the property with the joint family estate. Second, when investment for a business acquisition of separate property, itself from the joint family nucleus with a clear understanding and intention that though the business is separate, it is always treated as joint family property. In either eventuality, it is imperative to establish that the person acquiring the property is a coparcener of a joint coparcenary property with which the self acquired property could be blended. There must exist a common amily nucleus or ancestral property, acquired property is alleged to have been thrown. In the present case, mere averment in the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be y firm is not enough to construe that he intend to throw the property in question into the hotchpot of his family. Rather, it has been deposed by Ms. Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate that in the Deed of partnership dated 05.09.1962, executed between Vinod Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass, Vinod Kumar is First, where a member, having acquired property in his individual capacity, voluntarily throws such property into the common stock or hotchpot of the joint family, with a clear and unequivocal intention to on his exclusive ownership therein. Such conduct must acquired property to waive his separate rights and to blend the property with the joint family estate. Second, when investment for a business itself from the joint family nucleus with a clear understanding and s always treated as erative to establish s a coparcener of a joint coparcenary property with which the self- acquired property could be blended. There must exist a common amily nucleus or ancestral property, acquired property is alleged to have been thrown. In the present case, mere averment in the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar (deceased) stating M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be intended hotchpot of his family. Rather, it has been deposed by Ms. Sangeeta, Clerk, Estate that in the Deed of partnership dated 05.09.1962, executed between Vinod Lal Chand, Mehar Chand and Ishar Dass, Vinod Kumar is SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 mentioned as the sole proprietor of Vijay Kumar. Further, the appellant mentioning the suit property to be the address for his own individual business cannot give it the colo Joint Property either. The instances presented are not enough to deduce Vinod Kumar’s clear intention that he wanted to blend his property with the ancestral property. Even if we construe the actions of Vinod Kumar as intentional to renounce his right question, the same had to be for the whole Hindu Undivided Family for an HUF to hotchpot, it could not have been in his own and the name of appellant only. The said claim of the appellant that only he and his father had share in the property, then the same cannot be considered as Joint Family property. 21.3. can come into existence after 1956 if thrown, it is hotchpot, the exact details of the specific day/month/year etc. of creation pleaded and mention Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated which is also lacking in the case in hand. There are no specific averments in the plaint claiming that the property in question was thrown into the hotchpot of 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases mentioned as the sole proprietor of Vijay Kumar. Further, the appellant mentioning the suit property to be the address for his own individual business cannot give it the colo Joint Property either. The instances presented are not enough to deduce Vinod Kumar’s clear intention that he wanted to blend his property with the ancestral property. Even if we construe the actions of Vinod Kumar as intentional to renounce his right question, the same had to be for the whole Hindu Undivided Family HUF to come into existence, after putting the property into hotchpot, it could not have been in his own and the name of appellant only. The said claim of the appellant that only he and his father had share in the property, then the same cannot be considered as Joint Family property. Further, while it is settled law that HUF/Hindu Joint family can come into existence after 1956 if , it is equally true that once property is thrown into common hotchpot, the exact details of the specific day/month/year etc. of creation of the HUF for the first time by pleaded and mentioned which is the legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated which is also lacking in the case in hand. There are no specific averments in the plaint ng that the property in question was thrown into the hotchpot of (O&M) & other connected cases [25] mentioned as the sole proprietor of the concern M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Further, the appellant mentioning the suit property to be the address for his own individual business cannot give it the color of Joint Property either. The instances presented are not enough to deduce Vinod Kumar’s clear intention that he wanted to blend his property with the ancestral property. Even if we construe the actions of Vinod Kumar as intentional to renounce his right in property in question, the same had to be for the whole Hindu Undivided Family , after putting the property into hotchpot, it could not have been in his own and the name of appellant has been consistent throughout that only he and his father had share in the property, then the same cannot be considered as Joint Family property. Further, while it is settled law that HUF/Hindu Joint family can come into existence after 1956 if an individual’s property is true that once property is thrown into common hotchpot, the exact details of the specific day/month/year etc. of HUF for the first time by such act, have to be clearly ed which is the legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated which is also lacking in the case in hand. There are no specific averments in the plaint ng that the property in question was thrown into the hotchpot of concern M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar. Further, the appellant mentioning the suit property to be r of Joint Property either. The instances presented are not enough to deduce Vinod Kumar’s clear intention that he wanted to blend his property with the ancestral property. Even if we construe the actions in property in question, the same had to be for the whole Hindu Undivided Family , after putting the property into hotchpot, it could not have been in his own and the name of appellant has been consistent throughout that only he and his father had share in the property, then the same Further, while it is settled law that HUF/Hindu Joint family so true that once property is thrown into common hotchpot, the exact details of the specific day/month/year etc. of have to be clearly ed which is the legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated which is also lacking in the case in hand. There are no specific averments in the plaint ng that the property in question was thrown into the hotchpot of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 family for it to be a Joint family property and thus, cannot be regarded so. 21.4. show sufficient nucleus/income of Hindu Joint Family a property in question had been purchased from the said nucleus. Also, once the appellant has failed to prove M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be run by a Joint Hindu Family or Joint Hindu Family Firm or coparcenary having been acquired from the earnings of coparcenary/Joint Hindu Family Business itself does not arise and the properties would not be of the HUF or of coparcenary. Therefore, from the discussion hereinabove, since neither the M proved to be of a Hindu Joint Family firm, nor the property concerned was proved to be a Joint property, appellant cannot be regarded as owner of half share of the property. 21.5. question was a Hindu Undivided Family Property/Joint Family property as pleaded by the appellant, it is needless to say that Hindu Joint Family Firm is different from a partnership firm as the latter is governed by principles enshrined in the Partner in his Treatise Hindu Law 21st Edition has pointed out the following points of difference between partnership and Hindu Joint Family firm: 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases family for it to be a Joint family property and thus, cannot be regarded Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record to show sufficient nucleus/income of Hindu Joint Family a property in question had been purchased from the said nucleus. Also, once the appellant has failed to prove M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be run by a Joint Hindu Family or Joint Hindu Family Firm or coparcenary not been established, the having been acquired from the earnings of coparcenary/Joint Hindu Family Business itself does not arise and the properties would not be of the HUF or of coparcenary. Therefore, from the discussion hereinabove, since neither the M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was proved to be of a Hindu Joint Family firm, nor the property concerned was proved to be a Joint property, appellant cannot be regarded as owner of half share of the property. Also, even assuming arguendo question was a Hindu Undivided Family Property/Joint Family property as pleaded by the appellant, it is needless to say that Hindu Joint Family Firm is different from a partnership firm as the latter is governed by principles enshrined in the Partner in his Treatise Hindu Law 21st Edition has pointed out the following points of difference between partnership and Hindu Joint Family firm: "In a joint family business no member of the (O&M) & other connected cases [26] family for it to be a Joint family property and thus, cannot be regarded Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record to show sufficient nucleus/income of Hindu Joint Family and that the property in question had been purchased from the said nucleus. Also, once the appellant has failed to prove M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be run by a Joint Hindu Family or Joint Hindu Family Firm or not been established, the question of the properties having been acquired from the earnings of coparcenary/Joint Hindu Family Business itself does not arise and the properties would not be of the HUF or of coparcenary. Therefore, from the discussion /s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was proved to be of a Hindu Joint Family firm, nor the property concerned was proved to be a Joint property, appellant cannot be regarded as arguendo that the property in question was a Hindu Undivided Family Property/Joint Family property as pleaded by the appellant, it is needless to say that Hindu Joint Family Firm is different from a partnership firm as the latter is governed by principles enshrined in the Partnership Act, 1932. Mulla in his Treatise Hindu Law 21st Edition has pointed out the following points of difference between partnership and Hindu Joint Family firm: "In a joint family business no member of the family for it to be a Joint family property and thus, cannot be regarded Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record to the property in question had been purchased from the said nucleus. Also, once the appellant has failed to prove M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar to be run by a Joint Hindu Family or Joint Hindu Family Firm or of the properties having been acquired from the earnings of coparcenary/Joint Hindu Family Business itself does not arise and the properties would not be of the HUF or of coparcenary. Therefore, from the discussion /s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar was proved to be of a Hindu Joint Family firm, nor the property concerned was proved to be a Joint property, appellant cannot be regarded as ty in question was a Hindu Undivided Family Property/Joint Family property as pleaded by the appellant, it is needless to say that Hindu Joint Family Firm is different from a partnership firm as the latter is ship Act, 1932. Mulla in his Treatise Hindu Law 21st Edition has pointed out the following points of difference between partnership and Hindu Joint Family firm:- "In a joint family business no member of the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 and the Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge & held as under: Thus, even if the same was held to be Hindu Joint Family firm, the appellant could not have claimed that he was the owner of one the share of the property concerned. Therefore, from the discussion made hereinabove, the property in question is held to be in of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar and the appellant 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases family can say that he is the owner of one one-third or one Hindu family property is unity of ownership and community of interest and the shares of the members are not defined". nd the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nanchand Gangaram Shetji v. Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge & held as under:- "37.....In a joint Hindu family business, no member of the family can say that he is the owner of one-half, one essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of ownership and community o shares of the members are not defined. Similarly, the pattern of the accounts of a joint Hindu family business maintained by the karta is different from those of a partnership. In the case of the former the shares of the individual members in the profits and losses are not worked out, while they have to be worked out in the case of partnership accounts." Thus, even if the same was held to be Hindu Joint Family firm, the appellant could not have claimed that he was the owner of one the share of the property concerned. Therefore, from the discussion hereinabove, the property in question is held to be in of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar, through its proprietor Vinod Kumar the appellant thus cannot be declared to be o (O&M) & other connected cases [27] family can say that he is the owner of one-half, third or one-fourth. The essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of ownership and community of interest and the shares of the members are not defined". Nanchand Gangaram Shetji v. Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge & Ors.; (1976) 2 SCC 429 has "37.....In a joint Hindu family business, no member of the family can say that he is the half, one-third or one fourth. The essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of ownership and community of interest, and the shares of the members are not defined. Similarly, the pattern of the accounts of a joint Hindu family business maintained by the karta is different from those of a partnership. In the case of the former the shares of the individual ers in the profits and losses are not worked out, while they have to be worked out in the case of partnership accounts." Thus, even if the same was held to be Hindu Joint Family firm, the appellant could not have claimed that he was the owner of one-half the share of the property concerned. Therefore, from the discussion hereinabove, the property in question is held to be in the name through its proprietor Vinod Kumar cannot be declared to be owner in possession half, fourth. The essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of ownership and community of interest and the shares of the Nanchand Gangaram Shetji v. has "37.....In a joint Hindu family business, no member of the family can say that he is the third or one fourth. The essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of f interest, and the shares of the members are not defined. Similarly, the pattern of the accounts of a joint Hindu family business maintained by the karta is different from those of a partnership. In the case of the former the shares of the individual ers in the profits and losses are not worked out, while they have to be worked out in Thus, even if the same was held to be Hindu Joint Family firm, the half of the share of the property concerned. Therefore, from the discussion name through its proprietor Vinod Kumar wner in possession SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-434 of the same to the extent of half share. 23. and thus 24. abovementioned terms. 25. disposed of. 30.01.2026 sanjay 434-2009 (O&M) & other connected cases of the same to the extent of half share. Further, the Will dated 21.05.1997 is thus declared null and void. Accordingly, both the appeal abovementioned terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? (O&M) & other connected cases [28] of the same to the extent of half share. the Will dated 21.05.1997 is held to be invalid Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of in the application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No invalid in the application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document