Statement Made By Karta Of HUF On Oath Before A Court Is Binding Upon The Successors-In-Interest: SC
The Supreme Court stated that a statement made by a karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) on oath before a Court would be binding upon the successors-in-interest.
The Court's decision followed the defendant's argument, contending that “mere joint venture or residence under one roof till 1975 was not by itself any type of source or nucleus to connect them into a Joint Hindu Family or Hindu Undivided Family as there were no funds, source or property to hold as joint family or ancestral family property.”
Moreover, the Court pointed out that the late brother did not treat the garage business as his own independent enterprise at any point of time and, on the other hand, gave evidence under oath that it was a joint family business with his brother, the plaintiff.
Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “What is of relevance presently is the statement made by late Laxmanrao on oath before a Court of law which would be binding not only upon himself but also upon his successors-in-interest and would, therefore, have to be construed as having been made against their interest, if they take a different stand, and would bind them. It is not open to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to claim that the affidavit and deposition of late Laxmanrao should not be used against them as the two suits are entirely different.”
Sr. Advocate Vinay Navare represented the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Sanjoy Ghose appeared for the respondents.
Two brothers (the plaintiff and the deceased brother) had formed a Joint Hindu Family. They allegedly started a joint auto garage business and purchased properties from the income of this business. The plaintiff then filed for a partition and separate possession of certain suit properties including houses and agricultural lands purchased from the proceeds of the said business.
The Trial Court entitled the plaintiff to a partition of agricultural land, recognising it as an ancestral property, while the other properties were deemed self-acquired by the late brother. The late brother was called the sole proprietor of the joint business, denying the plaintiff any interest in it.
The Appellate Court had concluded that the business was joint only since 1991. The defendants filed a review petition contending that since the garage business was a joint business only from 1991, the properties which were acquired prior thereto would not be liable for partition. The High Court accepted their plea.
Since there was no evidence adduced to show that the plaintiff worked in the garage on weekly wages, the Supreme Court explained that the presumption would be that the brothers worked together and jointly managed the garage business.
“Once late Laxmanrao affirmed on oath that he was the Karta of the Joint Family consisting of himself, his brother, viz., the plaintiff, and their family members and that the garage business was a joint family business, there is no avenue left for defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to escape therefrom. The said affirmation by Laxmanrao would be binding upon them,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare v. Nanibai (Dead) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 283)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Vinay Navare; AOR Amol B. Karande; Advocate N Rao, Akshay Mann, Navya Jannu, and T.Narender Rao
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Sanjoy Ghose; AOR Nitin Bhardwaj; Advocates Rishab Dubey and Anurag Bharadwaj
