Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the civil appeals and left undisturbed the Madras High Court’s modified preliminary decree on partition, which treated most of the disputed agricultural lands as joint Hindu family property while excluding only specified items found to be exclusively owned by one coparcener. The Court observed that once income-yielding ancestral property is shown to exist, acquisitions made by the Karta during the joint family’s continuance are presumed joint unless self-acquisition is proved with cogent evidence.

The dispute concerns a family partition over 79 items of agricultural properties situated in and around Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The properties were claimed to be joint Hindu family properties descended from a common ancestor, with certain items asserted to be ancestral lands forming the income-yielding nucleus of the family. One coparcener instituted a suit seeking partition and separate possession of his share, contending that the family remained joint in residence, cultivation, and management, and that acquisitions made in the name of the family head or other members were from joint family funds.

Also Read: Armed Forces Tribunal Can Hear Service Officer’s Appeal Against ICC POSH Findings: Supreme Court

The contesting defendant asserted that several properties were self-acquired, purchased from independent income earned through agricultural, contractual, and other activities. Registered sale deeds executed by the family head in favour of the defendant were relied upon to establish valid alienations for legal necessity. Reliance was also placed on transactions effected as guardian of minor heirs under court permission. An unregistered Will allegedly executed shortly before the family patriarch’s death was produced. The trial court partly decreed the suit, the first appellate court modified the share, and the High Court partly allowed the appeals by excluding specific items from partition.

The Court recorded that “the impugned judgment of the High Court reflects a correct appreciation of the pleadings, exhaustive analysis of the record and settled principles governing partition of joint Hindu family properties.”

It observed that “the relationship between the principal parties was admitted, and that the suit was instituted by one coparcener against the others during the subsistence of the joint family.” It further recorded that “the genealogy traced to Pallikoodathan and his three sons was not in dispute.”

On the question of joint family property, referring to Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors, (1954) 1 SCC 544 the Court stated that “proof of the mere existence of a joint family does not by itself render all properties as joint family properties,” but added that “once it is established that ancestral properties yielding income existed and acquisitions were made during the continuance of the joint family, the burden shifts to the person asserting self-acquisition.”

Regarding the ancestral lands, it noted that revenue records “categorically evidenced cultivation over several fasli years and disclosed the existence of wells and oil-engine pump sets.” On the plea of independent income, the Court recorded that “Hindu law does not require other coparceners to establish with precision the exact source of funds for each acquisition made by the Karta.” It stated that “properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved.”

On partition, the Court recorded that “the High Court recognised that separate enjoyment of portions, installation of irrigation facilities, or even obtaining borrowings individually, do not by themselves establish partition in law. What is required is a clear and unequivocal intention to sever the joint status. The High Court correctly emphasized that all relevant conveyances described the interests conveyed as undivided shares, that there was no mutation evidencing division, and that there was no separate payment towards borrowings. In the absence of any declaration or conduct evidencing an intention to divide, the inference of continued joint family status was inevitable.

With respect to alienations, it stated that “alienations by a Karta in favour of one coparcener must be proved to be for legal necessity and that vague or general recitals are insufficient to bind the interests of other coparceners.”

On the Will, the Court noted that “the Will was allegedly executed barely 72 hours prior to death,” and that circumstances “clearly warranted a finding of suspicion.” It further recorded that the rejection of the Will “had therefore attained finality.”

Also Read: PG Residency Can Be Counted Cumulatively Across Institutions If Prospectus Doesn’t Say Otherwise: Delhi High Court Sets Aside AIIMS Rejection Of Top Rank Holder

The Court directed that “Except to the limited extent expressly modified therein, this Court finds no ground to take a view different from that taken by the High Court. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed. No order as to cost.”

Case Title: Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 126

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2129–2130 of 2012

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma