A joint Hindu family consists of persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. After an amendment in 2005, daughters also became eligible for share in HUF. My question is how did you presume the family as HUF in the absence of union of families? If there is no HUF, there is no karta. Assuming HUF exists, son's father is the karta in 1991, not the son. Does the transfer specifies that consideration was received for the property? You need to have irrefutable proof to take this defence. 

Dear Expert, please answer this.

The sister (Y) was married in before 1988 and son (X) got the property in his name in 1988.  and in 1991 Son (X) transferred to his wife.

Will this be consider as HUF family?

if No, than she can claim property

if Yes, than she can claim property

No. There is no HUF here. How did the son (X) got the property in his favour?

I have applied for RTI to get the same. Their is no mutation copy of those survey number.

when we applied for one of the survey number, we didn't get the RR details from taluk office.

In case if I don't get the details how the son(X) got the property, the onus of proving lies on sister (Y) right ?

No. The burden of proof lies with the son(X) to show that the property was rightfully transferred in his favour. One cannot give that one doesn't have. If he is not the rightful owner of  the property, then how can he transfer it in his spouse's name!

Son (X) have PANI in his name from the year 1988 till now.

But the issue here is we don't have document which shows how the Son(X) got  from his Father. We applied for the RR number (which shows how the property transcation happened) which was show in PANI but got reply from taluk office that they don't have document of that RR number. This RR number was mentioned in PANI.

Since the Sister (Y) was filed the case. The burden of proof lies on who filed the case right????

Expert please correct me if I am wrong... here ...??????

Sec 101. Burden of Proof -

Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence to facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

Illustration

 (b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies to be true.

A must prove the existence of those facts.

Sec 109. Burden of proof as to relationship in the case of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent -

When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.

Sec 110. Burden of proof as to ownership -

When the question is, whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.

Supreme Court judgement

The take of the Supreme Court in the recent case Rangammal v. Kuppuswami and Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2003 that burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact, and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff.

Experts pls reply if my above statement is wrong.