The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to halt construction and sale of a disputed property, ruling that a property purchased in 1943 in the name of an individual cannot be presumed to be a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) asset solely based on an admission made in estate duty proceedings. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prima facie prove that the property was acquired using HUF funds.
Justice Sandeep Jain, presiding over the matter, affirmed the order of the Additional District Judge (FTC), Mahoba, which had rejected the plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction against the defendants.
Case Background
The dispute centers on a property known as ‘Shanker Godam’ in Mahoba. The appellant-plaintiff, Radhey Lal Gupta, filed a suit (O.S. No. 3 of 2025) alleging that the property was purchased on August 31, 1943, from the income of the HUF “Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad” in the name of its partner, Seth Gaya Prasad. The plaintiff contended that since the property belonged to the HUF, Seth Gaya Prasad’s son (defendant no. 1, Shyam Sunder Gupta) had no right to sell it exclusively.
The plaintiff challenged two sale deeds executed by defendant no. 1 on January 30, 2025, in favor of defendant nos. 7 and 8, seeking their cancellation and a permanent injunction to stop construction on the site.
Defendant no. 1 countered that his father, Gaya Prasad, purchased the property from his self-earned income and became its sole owner. He relied on a registered Will executed by his father on February 1, 1972, bequeathing the property to him. The defendants argued that the HUF in question was constituted in 1951, years after the property purchase in 1943, effectively negating the claim that HUF funds were utilized.
Submissions of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel argued that since the property was bought in the name of a partner of the firm, a presumption arose that it was HUF property. They heavily relied on an estate duty assessment order from 1978, where a representative of the family allegedly admitted that the deceased Gaya Prasad held only a 20% share in the HUF property.
The respondents’ counsel submitted that the burden of proving the property belonged to the HUF lay with the plaintiff, a burden that remained undischarged. They highlighted that the 1943 sale deed was never challenged for over 80 years. It was further argued that the plaintiff had concealed the pendency of two other suits (O.S. No. 259 of 1991 and O.S. No. 156 of 2024) involving the same property and parties.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and the trial court’s findings. Justice Jain observed that the plaintiff failed to produce any concrete documentary evidence—such as income tax returns, balance sheets, or partnership deeds—to prove the existence of the HUF “Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad” in 1943 or that the property was purchased from its nucleus.
On Admission in Estate Duty Proceedings: The Court addressed the plaintiff’s reliance on the 1978 estate duty assessment order, where a cousin of the deceased had provided information. The Court held that such an admission is not conclusive proof of title.
“The trial court has not erred in concluding that merely on the basis of admission by Ramswaroop in proceedings before the estate duty assessment officer, it cannot be presumed that the disputed property was of HUF ‘Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad’. … It is also apparent that merely on the basis of admission, the title of disputed property cannot be presumed in favour of the plaintiff.”
On Burden of Proof: Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh vs. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh, the Court reiterated the principle that the burden lies on the person claiming the property to be joint to prove the existence of an adequate family nucleus.
“It is apparent that in the instant case the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that there was adequate income/nucleus of the HUF ‘Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad’ in the year 1943, through which Gaya Prasad could have purchased the disputed property, but this burden has not been prima facie discharged by the plaintiff.”
On Appellate Interference: The Court referred to established precedents in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi, stating that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s discretionary order unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious.
“The view taken by the trial court is a possible view… Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity.”
Decision
Finding no perversity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiff, especially since the property had already been sold and possession handed over to third parties who had commenced construction.
The trial court has been directed to decide the suit on its merits, preferably within six months.
- Case Title: Radhey Lal Gupta vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Alias Ganesh Prasad Gupta And 7 Others
- Case No.: First Appeal From Order No. 2756 of 2025
