### Mere Existence of Joint Family Does Not Presume Self-Acquired Properties Are Joint Family Assets

The Plaintiff (Appellant) and Defendants are siblings and the mother of a family headed by the late Manilal Patel, a retired Deputy Collector.

The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and for the cancellation of a Will dated 09.02.1988 executed by the deceased father.

The Plaintiff contended that the suit properties (Bungalow No. 5, Patidar Society and a plot in Kailashnagar) were Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties purchased using income from ancestral agricultural land in Chandkheda.

The Defendants contested this, asserting the properties were self-acquired and distributed via a valid Will, which granted the Plaintiff only a life interest to reside in the bungalow rather than absolute ownership.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 29.11.2002, leading to this First Appeal.

1. Whether the Plaintiff proved that the suit properties are joint Hindu family properties in which he holds an undivided share.

2. Whether the deceased Manilal Patel executed the Will dated 09.02.1988 in a sound disposing state of mind.

3. Whether the exclusion of a natural heir (Plaintiff) from absolute ownership constitutes a "suspicious circumstance" vitiating the Will.

Section 96 of the CPC regarding appellate jurisdiction.

There is no legal presumption that a property is joint family property merely because a joint family exists; the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the joint nature to prove a sufficient income-yielding nucleus (D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam and Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar).

Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The mere deprivation of a natural heir does not invalidate a Will if the disposition was a voluntary act of a sound mind (H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajjamma and Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur).

The Court found the Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving a "joint family nucleus." While ancestral land existed, the Plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that he had no documentary evidence of income from said land being used for the bungalow.

Crucially, the Plaintiff’s counsel put a suggestion to a defense witness (DW-2) that the father purchased the properties from his "own self-earned income," which the Court treated as an admission damaging the Plaintiff's case.

The deceased had independent income as a Deputy Collector, rebutting the theory that the properties were HUF accretions.

Regarding the Will, the Court noted that the Plaintiff was not entirely disinherited but given a life interest to reside in the property.

The attesting witness (DW-3) proved the Will was signed by the testator in a sound state of mind, satisfying the judicial conscience.

The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove the properties were HUF.

The Court confirmed that the Will was validly executed and that the partial deprivation of the Plaintiff did not constitute a suspicious circumstance under the facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s judgment/decree dated 29.11.2002 was confirmed.