Existence of joint family residence does not create a presumption of HUF ownership without proof of nucleus.

The Respondent (father) filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits against the Appellant (son) regarding a portion of Flat No. Q-603, Anupam Apartments, Delhi.

The Respondent claimed he purchased the property in 1992 from his own funds and permitted the Appellant to reside there as a licensee on humanitarian grounds.

The Appellant contested the suit, asserting that the property was a Joint Hindu Family (HUF) property purchased from joint funds, alleging he contributed approximately 62% of the cost (Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 4,00,000/-).

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the father, holding the property to be his self-acquired property and awarding mesne profits at Rs. 3,000/- per month with 10% annual escalation.

The son appealed, maintaining the HUF claim and challenging the mesne profits.

1. Whether the suit property is a Joint Hindu Family property or the exclusive property of the Respondent?

2. Whether the Respondent is entitled to a decree of possession and permanent injunction?

3. Whether the Respondent is entitled to mesne profits, and if so, at what rate?

The Court applied Section 96 of the CPC regarding appeals from original decrees.

It relied on the principle from Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango that the existence of a joint family does not lead to a presumption that property held by a member is joint; the burden lies on the claimant to prove a joint family nucleus.

It further applied Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, establishing that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property inherited or acquired does not automatically become HUF property unless specifically thrown into a common hotchpotch and clearly pleaded under Order VI Rule 4 CPC.

Regarding mesne profits, the Court applied the definition under Section 2(12) of the CPC, which focuses on the benefit derived by the person in wrongful possession.

The Court found no evidence of a "conscious creation" of an HUF or the existence of an HUF nucleus.

While the Appellant claimed financial contribution, the Court noted that the initial investment in plots and LIC policies used to fund the flat were made by the Respondent (father) when the Appellant had no independent income.

The Court discredited the testimony regarding a loan from an aunt (DW-4), finding it more probable that the money was a repayment to the father for medical expenses he incurred.

Following Sunny (Minor) v. Raj Singh, the Court held that mere joint residence or contribution toward repairs (Rs. 50,000/-) does not transform a self-acquired property into HUF property.

Regarding mesne profits, the Court held that even in the absence of expert evidence, a court can take judicial notice of the location and nature of the premises to fix a reasonable rate.

It held that the Respondent is the absolute owner of the property and the Appellant’s status was merely that of a licensee whose license had been validly terminated.

The Court affirmed the decree for possession and the award of mesne profits at Rs. 3,000/- per month with a 10% annual escalation from July 1, 2009, until the handing over of vacant possession.