Existence Of Ancestral Nucleus Shifts Burden Of Proof In Joint Family Property Claims: Supreme Court
Affirms High Court ruling in dispute over 79 agricultural properties; suspicious will and unsupported self-acquisition pleas rejected
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld a Madras High Court judgment in a long-standing Hindu joint family partition dispute involving 79 agricultural properties, reiterating that once income-yielding ancestral property is established, the burden shifts to the coparcener claiming self-acquisition to prove independent funding. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court’s appreciation of evidence was thorough and disclosed no perversity or legal infirmity.
The bench noted that the High Court had rejected the plea as mere independent earnings displaced the joint family presumption and also disbelieved an unregistered Will allegedly executed 72 hours before death, citing suspicious circumstances including deviation from the testator’s usual signature and doubts about attestation.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma while affirming the High Court’s observations, noted, “...it correctly rejected the simplistic assumption that the mere existence of some independent earnings would automatically negate the contribution of joint family income. The High Court observed that Hindu law does not require other coparceners to establish with precision the exact source of funds for each acquisition made by the Karta. Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of the joint family, and where ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved”.
“…Likewise, on the issue of the Will dated 24.11.1989 (Ex. B-200), the High Court’s reasoning is both legally and factually compelling. It noted that the testator was habitually signing documents but affixed only a thumb impression as far as this document is concerned; that the Will was allegedly executed barely 72 hours prior to death; that it was scribed by a close relative instead of a professional scribe; and that the scribe’s presence itself was doubtful due to election duty. These circumstances clearly warranted a finding of suspicion. Importantly, the High Court also noted that the rejection of the Will by the Trial Court had not been challenged by D2 at the appropriate stage and had therefore attained finality. The Appellant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at different stages of litigation”, further observed.
Senior Advocates V. Giri, V. Raghavachari and Anant Palli appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate M.C. Dhingra appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, the dispute centered on whether the properties were joint family assets or the exclusive acquisitions of one branch. The appellant argued that key ancestral lands were waterlogged and incapable of yielding income and relied on alleged independent earnings and a Will executed shortly before the family head’s death.
The High Court, however, relied on revenue records showing cultivation over several fasli years and the existence of irrigation facilities, establishing that the ancestral properties formed an income-generating nucleus. While acknowledging that the family head had undertaken service and contractual work, the Court rejected the contention that the mere existence of some independent income automatically displaced the presumption of joint family acquisition.
Reiterating settled Hindu law, the Supreme Court noted that once an ancestral nucleus capable of yielding income is shown, coparceners asserting joint family character are not required to prove the precise source of funds for each subsequent acquisition made during the subsistence of the joint family.
On the plea of prior partition, the Court agreed that separate enjoyment, improvements, or individual borrowings do not by themselves establish severance of joint status in the absence of a clear and unequivocal intention to divide. Conveyances continued to describe interests as undivided shares, and no mutation or declaration evidenced division.
The courts had also undertaken a transaction-wise scrutiny of alienations made by the family head, sustaining only those supported by legal necessity.
Finding that the High Court’s conclusions were based on detailed analysis and consistent application of settled principles governing joint family property, alienations by a karta, and proof of partition, the Supreme Court declined to reopen factual findings in appeal.
Cause Title: Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) And Ors. & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 126]
Appellant: V. Giri, V. Raghavachari, Anant Palli, Senior Advocates, G. Balaji, AOR, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Rajeev M. Roy, Anand Selvam, P. Srinivasan, Advocate, Dr. D. Jayaprakash, Atchaya Gopal, R. Shase, V. Puneedhan, D. Naveena, Advocates.
Respondents: M.C. Dhingra, Senior Advocate, Nishit Agrawal, Kanishka Mittal, Deepti Rathi, P. V. Yogeswaran, Balaji Srinivasan, Vishwaditya Sharma, Kanishka Singh, D Mohan, S Raju, Harish Tripathi, Subhornadeep Bhattacharjee, K. Shiva, Rohan Dewan, Aakriti Priya, Rajesh R. Pandian, D.V.S. Santil, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Anupam Kumar, Jogendra Kumar, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Rajeev Singh, Samant Singh, Anu H Kirutthika, Rajeev Singh, , Gaurav Dhingra, Shashank Singh, A.K. Singh, Mahendra Ram, Raghvendra Shukla, Piyush Kant Roy, Ravishankar Ra, G Ilamurugu, Aswathi M.K., Amrendra Kumar Singh, Anand Mishra, Advocates.