Title Cannot Pass by Mere Admission – Burden to Prove HUF Character Lies on the Plaintiff: Allahabad High Court Declines to Freeze ‘Shanker Godam’ Sale

In a significant ruling on the limits of interim injunctions and the burden of proving joint family property, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of temporary injunction in a suit claiming that property purchased in 1943 in the name of one coparcener was in fact HUF property.

Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Jain, by judgment dated 17.02.2026, held that the plaintiff failed to establish even a prima facie case that the disputed property “Shanker Godam” was purchased from the income of HUF “Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad.” The Court further reiterated that appellate interference with discretionary orders is permissible only where the trial court’s view is “perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to settled principles,” none of which were present.

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

“Mere Existence of Joint Family Does Not Raise Presumption of Joint Property”

The central argument of the plaintiff was that although the registered sale deed dated 31.08.1943 stood in the name of Gaya Prasad, the property was purchased from the funds of the HUF and therefore could not have been sold unilaterally by defendant no.1.

Rejecting this submission, the Court relied on settled Hindu law principles and quoted the Supreme Court in Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh:

“The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, therefore, in the first instance upon the person who claims it as coparcenary property.”

Justice Jain emphasized that only after proof of possession of an “adequate nucleus” can a presumption arise that property acquired in the name of a coparcener is joint family property.

In the present case, the Court found:

“In the instant case the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that there was adequate income/nucleus of the HUF… in the year 1943… but this burden has not been prima facie discharged.”

There was no documentary evidence demonstrating existence of the HUF in 1943 or proof of sufficient joint family funds capable of purchasing the property.

Estate Duty Assessment Order of 1974 Held Insufficient

The plaintiff relied heavily upon an estate duty assessment order which recorded that Gaya Prasad had a 20% share in HUF “Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad.”

The Court examined this document carefully and found it inadequate for multiple reasons. It was only a photocopy. The information therein had been supplied by a cousin of the deceased. More importantly, the assessment order was not conclusive proof of ownership.

Relying upon settled precedent, the Court reiterated:

“Title cannot pass by a mere admission.”

Thus, even if an admission was recorded in assessment proceedings, it could not create or transfer title in favour of the plaintiff.

2024 Writ Judgment Held Irrelevant

The appellant sought to rely on a High Court decision in Writ-B No. 6108 of 2014, where plot no. 1866 purchased in 1956 was held to be HUF property.

The Court distinguished it decisively. The earlier writ concerned a different plot and a different sale deed of 1956. In the present case, the plaintiff had not even clearly identified the khasra or plot number of the disputed property purchased in 1943.

The Court observed that the writ judgment “has got no relevancy to the facts of this case” and could not establish that the 1943 purchase was HUF property.

“Silence for Decades Raises Serious Doubt”

The Court also found it significant that the plaintiff remained silent for decades after the death of Gaya Prasad in 1972. The property had been mutated in the name of defendant no.1 based on a registered Will. No challenge was made at that stage.

The Court noted the improbability of a genuine coparcenary claim surfacing only in 2024, long after the original purchase in 1943 and subsequent testamentary succession in 1972.

Suppression of Earlier Suits Weighed Against Plaintiff

The trial court had recorded that earlier suits, O.S. No. 259 of 1991 and O.S. No. 156 of 2024, involving the same property and similar reliefs, were pending between substantially the same parties. This fact was not disclosed in the plaint.

The High Court found no error in treating this concealment as a ground to decline discretionary relief.

No Prima Facie Case, No Balance of Convenience

By the time the appeal was heard, the property had already been sold to defendants 7 and 8 through registered sale deeds dated 30.01.2025, and construction had been raised.

The Court also noted that the plaintiff had not sought declaration of title or partition of his alleged share, but merely injunction and cancellation of sale deeds.

“It is apparent that the plaintiff has failed to prove that prima facie he is having any right title and interest in the disputed property.”

Without a prima facie right, the balance of convenience could not favour the plaintiff.

“Appellate Court Cannot Substitute Its Own View for a Possible View”

Justice Jain undertook an extensive discussion of the law laid down in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi, reiterating that an appellate court hearing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC cannot reassess evidence merely because another view is possible.

“If the view taken by the trial court was a possible view, the Appellate Court was not supposed to substitute its view.”

The High Court concluded that the trial court’s reasoning was a possible and lawful view based on the material available. There was no perversity, arbitrariness or misapplication of settled principles.

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The trial court’s order dated 29.08.2025 rejecting interim injunction applications 6-C2 and 31-C2 was affirmed. The trial court was directed to decide the suit preferably within six months, and it was clarified that observations in the appellate order would not influence the final adjudication.

This ruling reinforces foundational principles of Hindu law and civil procedure: the claimant of coparcenary character bears the initial burden; admission does not create title; and appellate courts will not lightly interfere with discretionary orders refusing injunction.

Date of Decision: 17 February 2026