Kesharbai v. Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade (2014) 4 SCC 707
Supreme Court of India 2014 Bench: SC Citation: (2014) 4 SCC 707 Area: Hindu Joint Family & Partition Read: ~6 min
Gulzar Hashmi
India
31 Oct 2025
kesharbai-v-tarabai-prabhakarrao-nalawade-2014-4-scc-707
CASE_TITLE: Kesharbai v. Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade (2014) 4 SCC 707
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: partition presumption, burden of proof, joint family property
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: self-acquired vs joint, mesne profits, limitation, maintainability
PUBLISH_DATE: 31-10-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Quick Summary
- Presumption A Hindu family is joint and property is joint—but after a proved partition, presume all properties stood divided.
- Burden Anyone claiming a property remained joint must prove that exclusion.
- Outcome The Supreme Court restored the correct burden and dismissed the plaintiffs’ partition suit.
Issues
- Did the plaintiffs prove the properties were joint family properties?
- Did the defendants prove a partition on 22.04.1985 with separate possession?
- Was the Nageshwarwadi (Sr. No. 5) house self-acquired of Eknath?
- Is the suit maintainable and within limitation?
- Are plaintiffs entitled to partition, possession of half share, and future mesne profits?
Rules
- General rule: Hindu family is presumed joint; properties are presumed joint.
- But once partition is proved, the presumption flips—assume complete partition of all properties.
- The burden to show any property was excluded from that partition lies on the party who asserts it remained joint.
Facts — Timeline
Parties: Plaintiffs are wife/children of late Prabhakarrao; defendants include wife/children of late Trimbakrao; some later purchasers also joined.
Suit filed: Plaintiffs seek partition and separate possession of half share in multiple properties at Kannad and Aurangabad.
Purchases/Use: Lands and houses stated as jointly purchased/constructed; family members resided together earlier.
Dispute: Whether there was a complete partition in 1985, and whether the Nageshwarwadi house remained joint or was self-acquired.
Arguments
Plaintiffs
- Properties are joint family properties.
- Seek half share, possession, and future mesne profits.
- Claim some properties, including Nageshwarwadi house, stayed joint.
Defendants
- Partition in 1985—all took separate shares/possession.
- Plaintiffs failed to prove any property remained joint.
- Nageshwarwadi house was self-acquired of Eknath (burden not on defendants).
Judgment
- Partition 1985 affirmed: Trial Court and High Court recognized a complete partition.
- Presumption: After partition, presume all properties partitioned.
- Burden: The party claiming a property remained joint must prove exclusion. The High Court erred by shifting burden to defendants for the Nageshwarwadi house.
- Result: Appeal allowed; findings corrected; plaintiffs’ suit dismissed in full.
Ratio Decidendi
Once a family partition is proved, the legal presumption is that the partition covered all properties. The person alleging that a specific property stayed joint must lead convincing proof. Courts should not reverse this burden without firm basis.
Why It Matters
- Gives a clear burden of proof roadmap in partition disputes.
- Helps decide claims over left-out properties after a recorded partition.
- Strong exam illustration for presumptions in Hindu joint family law.
Key Takeaways
Proved partition → complete partition presumption.
Claimant must prove any exclusion.
Misplacing burden can reverse outcomes.
Suit dismissed when burden not met.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: P-B-P — Partition proved → Burden flips → Plaintiff must prove exclusion.
- Prove partition first.
- Burden sits on the one claiming “still joint”.
- Present clear evidence of exclusion.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether properties remained joint after an alleged 1985 partition and who bears the burden. | Presumption of joint family; after proved partition, presume completeness; claimant must prove exclusion. | Evidence showed partition; plaintiffs could not prove that Nageshwarwadi house or others were excluded. | Appeal allowed; burden corrected; suit dismissed. |
Glossary
- Partition
- Division of joint family property into separate shares.
- Presumption
- A legal starting point; here, completeness after a proved partition.
- Burden of Proof
- Duty to bring proof; on the party who claims a property stayed joint.
- Mesne Profits
- Profits earned by someone wrongfully in possession of property.
FAQs
The presumption flips to complete partition. A claimant must prove any property that still remained joint.
Because the plaintiffs did not discharge the burden to prove that any property, like the Nageshwarwadi house, was excluded from the 1985 partition.
Yes, generally. But after partition, the working presumption is the opposite—completeness of division.
With the claim itself failing on burden and presumption, no partition relief or future mesne profits could be granted.
Write: “Partition 1985 proved → presume completeness → claimant must prove any exclusion.” Then apply to facts and conclude.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now