Family lawHindu lawSupreme Court of India

Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v Narayan Devji Kango

AIR 1954 SC 379; 1955 SCR 119541 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Siddopant and Krishnarao were members of a joint Hindu family holding Kulkarni Watan lands in Ukamnal and Katakanhalli (Bijapur); Siddopant also bought a house and lands and built houses.
Held
That a Hindu family is joint raises no presumption that property held by a member is joint family property. The person who says so must prove it. The burden shifts once a joint family nucleus that could have produced the acquisition is shown.
Principle
Proof that a Hindu family is joint raises no presumption that a member's property is joint; the person asserting it must prove it, though the burden shifts where a joint nucleus could have produced the acquisition. An adopted son's adoption relates back only to his adoptive father's estate, and does not divest property already vested by inheritance from a collateral.
Cite this

Facts

  • Siddopant and Krishnarao were members of a joint Hindu family holding Kulkarni Watan lands in Ukamnal and Katakanhalli (Bijapur); Siddopant also bought a house and lands and built houses
  • Krishnarao died in 1897; Siddopant's son Gundo died in 1901, and his widow adopted Devji on 16 December 1901. Devji also inherited the properties of Swamirao, a collateral who died about 1903
  • On 26 April 1944 Krishnarao's widow Rukminibai adopted the plaintiff, who on 29 June 1944 sued Devji's sons for partition, claiming half of the family properties
  • He said Siddopant's acquisitions were joint, and that his adoption let him divest Devji of Swamirao's properties; the defendants said the acquisitions were self-acquired and that his adoption could not divest property already vested
  • The Bombay High Court (12 August 1949) largely decided against him, and he appealed

Held

  • That a Hindu family is joint raises no presumption that property held by a member is joint family property. The person who says so must prove it. The burden shifts once a joint family nucleus that could have produced the acquisition is shown.
  • An adoption relates back only to the adoptive father's own estate. It does not divest property that had already vested in another by inheritance from a collateral.
  • The appeal was dismissed, with the decree modified.

Cite this

Citation

Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v Narayan Devji Kango AIR 1954 SC 379; 1955 SCR 1

Reported: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/947.pdf ; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1089401/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.