No Prudent Man Would Allow His Share to Be Used for Another’s Separate Property: Madras High Court Declares Blending of Father’s Property, Grants 1/3rd Share to Son

“Conduct Speaks Louder Than Title Deeds” – Madras High Court delivered a significant judgment on the doctrine of blending under Hindu law and the limits of a father’s power to unilaterally settle property. The Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice R. Sakthivel set aside the trial court’s dismissal of a suit for declaration and partition and held that the property in question, though originally separate, had been treated as joint family property by conduct.

The Court passed a preliminary decree dividing the suit property into three equal shares and declared that the settlement deed dated 10.02.2016 executed in favour of the second defendant would not bind the plaintiff’s 1/3rd share.

“Even Separate Property Can Be Treated as Joint Family Property by Intention”

The dispute concerned a residential property at Koyambedu originally purchased in 1966 by the plaintiff’s grandfather. After his demise, the property was partitioned in 1987 between his two sons, and the suit property measuring 1800 sq. ft. was allotted to the first defendant, the plaintiff’s father.

The Court acknowledged that upon partition, the property devolved on the first defendant as his separate property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the Bench clarified that the inquiry does not end there. The real question was whether, by subsequent conduct, the first defendant had treated the property as joint family property.

The Bench observed that Hindu law recognises the concept of blending and that “a person treating his separate property as joint family property and allowing the other members to exercise their right is also not alien to Hindu law.”

“Statutory Presumption Favors the Wife” – Benami Plea Rejected

A crucial aspect of the case revolved around another property at Mangadu, purchased in the name of the plaintiff’s mother under a registered sale deed. After her death, the property was sold for Rs.38,00,000/-, and the father admitted that Rs.35,75,000/- from the sale proceeds was paid to a builder for reconstruction of the suit property.

The first defendant attempted to argue that though the property stood in his wife’s name, he had funded its purchase and it was effectively his property. The Court firmly rejected this contention.

Referring to Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the Bench held that “unless the contrary is proved, the property purchased in the name of the wife shall be presumed to have been purchased for her benefit.”

Significantly, the General Power of Attorney executed for the sale of the Mangadu property contained a recital that the wife had purchased the property “out of her own income” and had enjoyed it as absolute owner. The Court held that the first defendant could not go behind the recitals of a registered document, especially in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The plea of benami was therefore rejected in unequivocal terms.

“Using the Sons’ Shares to Rebuild the House Shows Clear Intention”

The Bench gave considerable weight to the conduct of the parties. The evidence revealed that the family lived together under one roof with a common kitchen and that the father maintained the bank accounts of both sons. Even after marriage, the sons continued to reside in the same house.

Most importantly, the Court noted that the sale proceeds of the mother’s property, to which the plaintiff and second defendant were each entitled to 1/3rd share, were entirely utilised for reconstructing the suit property. There was no evidence that the plaintiff’s share had been returned.

In a telling observation, the Court stated, “If the property has not been treated as joint family property, no prudent man would allow his share of sale consideration to be utilized for the construction of other’s property.”

The Bench concluded that the utilisation of common funds and the collective conduct of the family clearly demonstrated an intention to treat the property as joint family property. The father, by his actions, had waived his exclusive claim and blended the property with the joint family estate.

“Trial Court Misplaced the Burden Despite Clear Admissions”

The High Court was critical of the trial court’s approach. The trial court had faulted the plaintiff for not examining the builder to prove payment of Rs.35,75,000/-.

The Division Bench observed that when the first defendant himself admitted receiving Rs.38,00,000/- and paying Rs.35,75,000/- for construction, placing the burden on the plaintiff reflected a misunderstanding of basic principles of evidence.

The Court also noted that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the statutory presumption under the Benami Act and the binding nature of documentary recitals.

Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2022 were set aside.

“A Father Cannot Settle Entire Joint Family Property Ignoring His Son”

Having held that the suit property was treated as joint family property, the Court examined the validity of the settlement deed dated 10.02.2016 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant.

The Bench held that once the property is found to be joint family property, the father cannot unilaterally settle the entire property to the exclusion of one coparcener.

However, instead of invalidating the settlement deed entirely, the Court adopted a measured approach. It held that the settlement deed would not bind the plaintiff’s 1/3rd share but would remain effective to the extent of the remaining 2/3rd share.

A preliminary decree was accordingly passed dividing the property into three equal shares and allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. There was no order as to costs.

This reportable judgment reaffirms that title alone does not determine the character of property in Hindu law. The intention of the parties, gathered from conduct and surrounding circumstances, plays a decisive role. By recognising blending through utilisation of common funds and family conduct, the Madras High Court has strengthened the jurisprudence protecting coparcenary rights and curbed unilateral alienation of joint family property.

Date of Decision: 16/02/2026