Proof of Independent Income Alone Does Not Rebut Joint Family Presumption: Supreme Court Refuses to Disturb Partition Decree

“Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of a joint Hindu family and ancestral lands exist yielding income, the burden lies on the claimant of self-acquisition” – In a significant judgment reaffirming foundational principles of Hindu Joint Family Law, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeals filed by Dorairaj (Appellant), thereby upholding a partition decree that recognised the joint family character of 79 agricultural properties, save a few exceptions. The Court reiterated that mere assertions of independent income are insufficient to dislodge the presumption of joint family ownership when ancestral income-yielding lands exist and the family continues to function jointly.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in Dorairaj vs Doraisamy (Dead) through LRs & Others, delivered a reasoned affirmation of concurrent findings by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and the Madras High Court, concluding that the Appellant failed to prove that the disputed properties were self-acquired. The Court also held that alienations made by the family Karta (father) in favour of one son must be strictly justified on the basis of legal necessity, and general recitals were insufficient to bind other coparceners.

“Hindu law does not require coparceners to establish exact sources of funds for each acquisition. Where ancestral nucleus exists and acquisitions are made during joint family subsistence, the burden lies on the person asserting self-acquisition,” the Court held.

“Proof of Independent Income Alone Does Not Rebut Joint Family Presumption”: Court Rejects Appellant's Self-Acquisition Plea

The appeals arose from a partition suit concerning 79 items of agricultural lands located in Tiruchirappalli District, instituted by Duraisamy (Plaintiff), son of Sengan (the Karta), claiming 1/4th share on the ground that all properties were either ancestral or acquired from joint family income. The Appellant Dorairaj (D2), brother of the Plaintiff, resisted the claim, asserting that many properties standing in his name or in the name of their father were self-acquired through independent income from contracting and business.

The Supreme Court, however, endorsed the findings of the High Court which rejected the Appellant’s case:

“The High Court observed that the Appellant was still pursuing his studies till about 1966. His claim of having amassed savings to fund real estate purchases during student years was rightly found improbable,” the Court noted.

The ancestral nature of Item Nos. 14 and 15—income-yielding agricultural lands—was admitted, and revenue records showed continuous cultivation. This, the Court held, sufficiently established the existence of a joint family nucleus, shifting the burden of proof upon Dorairaj to demonstrate that the disputed acquisitions were his self-acquisitions—a burden he failed to discharge.

“Alienations by Karta in Favour of One Son Must Be Justified Item-Wise”: Supreme Court Affirms Scrutiny of Sale Deeds

A major point of contention was a series of alienations made by Sengan (Karta) in favour of Dorairaj via multiple registered sale deeds between 1968 and 1987. These covered a large number of suit items. Dorairaj argued that these were valid sales executed for family needs such as medical expenses and discharge of debts, supported by contemporaneous documents.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the item-wise scrutiny adopted by the lower courts and the High Court, noting:

“Alienations by a Karta in favour of one coparcener must be proved to be for legal necessity. Vague or general recitals are insufficient. Courts rightly upheld only those alienations where necessity was substantiated.”

The Court permitted Dorairaj to establish actual expenditure towards medical expenses during the final decree proceedings, preserving his right to limited relief while maintaining the larger partition.

“Will Executed 3 Days Before Death – Thumb Impression Instead of Signature – Scribe's Presence Doubtful”: Supreme Court Affirms Rejection of Suspicious Will

The Appellant had also sought to rely on an unregistered Will dated 24.11.1989, allegedly executed by his father just three days before his death, bequeathing all properties in favour of select grandchildren. The High Court had rejected the Will as highly suspicious, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to interfere.

“The testator was habitually signing documents but used a thumb impression here. The Will was scribed by a close relative whose presence was doubtful due to election duty. These suspicious circumstances rightly warranted rejection,” the Court observed.

Further, the Trial Court’s rejection of the Will had attained finality, and Dorairaj had failed to challenge it appropriately at earlier stages.

“The Appellant cannot approbate and reprobate at different stages of litigation,” the Bench held, refusing to entertain arguments seeking to resurrect the Will’s validity.

“Separate Enjoyment Does Not Amount to Partition”: Plea of Prior Severance Rejected

Dorairaj had also claimed that prior partition or severance of joint status had occurred, pointing to separate cultivation, borrowings, and possession. The Court, however, reiterated the settled principle:

“Separate possession or enjoyment does not constitute partition. What is required is clear intention to sever. Absence of mutation, division of liabilities or any declaration negates the plea of prior partition.”

The High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, held that all documents described undivided shares, and no documentary evidence indicated division or separate status.

“Guardian Sales Do Not Automatically Divest Joint Family Character”: Alienations Made on Behalf of Minors Also Scrutinised

Another set of alienations involved properties belonging to the branch of the deceased brother Chidambaram, whose children were minors. Sales were effected by Sengan as their court-appointed guardian. While Dorairaj defended the transactions on the basis of court permission, the courts below subjected them to closer scrutiny.

“Sale deeds executed with court permission do not automatically divest properties of their joint family character unless benefit to minors and necessity is clearly shown,” the Court held, affirming the High Court’s item-wise exclusion of such alienations from binding the coparcenary.

“High Court’s Relief to Appellant Balanced and Justified”: Supreme Court Notes Limited Exclusions Were Rightly Granted

While the High Court largely upheld the decree granting 5/16th share to the Plaintiff, it granted partial relief to the Appellant by excluding Item No. 74, Item No. 66, and a portion of Item No. 36, which were proved to be purchased from third parties and not from family income.

The Supreme Court acknowledged this balance:

“The High Court exercised its powers with restraint and precision, granting only such relief as was clearly proved. Its approach reflects judicial discipline and factual correctness.”

No Interference Warranted in Concurrent Findings – Civil Appeals Dismissed

Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court concluded:

“The impugned judgment is reasoned and borne out from the material on record. 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.”

No order was made as to costs.

Date of Decision: February 5, 2026