Hindu Law – Joint Hindu Family – Partition – Nucleus – Burden of Proof
Joint family property – Existence of income-yielding ancestral property – Shift of burden – Self-acquisition not proved – Concurrent findings affirmed.
Where existence of ancestral properties (Item Nos. 14 & 15) was admitted and revenue records (Exs. B-201 to B-206) evidenced continuous cultivation and irrigation facilities, the Court held that a joint family nucleus capable of yielding income stood established. Acquisitions made during subsistence of joint status would be presumed joint unless the person asserting self-acquisition proves independent source. Mere proof of some independent earnings is insufficient without clear nexus between such earnings and specific acquisitions.
(Paras 29–31)
Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Partition – No prior severance in status
Separate enjoyment, installation of irrigation facilities, and independent borrowings do not by themselves establish partition. Clear intention to sever joint status must be proved. In absence of mutation entries, division in status, or documentary evidence of partition, joint status continues.
(Para 32)
Hindu Law – Alienation by Karta – Legal Necessity – Item-wise scrutiny
Alienations by Karta in favour of one coparcener must be justified by proof of legal necessity. General recitals are insufficient. Courts must undertake item-wise examination. Alienations supported by evidence of necessity upheld; others not binding on coparceners. Protection granted to establish actual medical expenses at final decree stage.
(Para 33)
Guardian’s Sale – Court Permission – Validity examined
Sale of minor’s property pursuant to court permission requires scrutiny of surrounding circumstances and application of sale consideration. Where inconsistencies found in recitals and discharge of debts not satisfactorily proved, alienation not binding. First Appellate Court’s correction justified.
(Para 34)
Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Thumb impression instead of signature – Execution shortly before death – Finality
Will dated 24.11.1989 executed three days prior to death held surrounded by suspicious circumstances:
-
Testator accustomed to signing but affixed thumb impression,
-
Execution 72 hours prior to death,
-
Scribed by close relative,
-
Scribe’s presence doubtful.
Rejection of Will by Trial Court having attained finality, Appellant cannot reopen issue.
(Para 35)
Civil Procedure – Impleadment at belated stage – Procedural discipline
Where share already represented and no evidence of collusion shown, impleadment at belated stage rightly refused to prevent unsettling proceedings which had otherwise attained finality.
(Para 36)
Appellate Jurisdiction – Concurrent findings – Limited interference
High Court exercised restraint; excluded Item Nos. 66, 74 and portion of Item 36 from partition as exclusive property of D2. Except to limited modification, concurrent findings upheld. No ground for interference under Article 136.
(Paras 37–39)
Result
Civil Appeals dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Para 39)
Hindu Law — Joint Hindu Family — Coparcenary — Existence of ancestral nucleus — Burden of proof — Once income-yielding ancestral property is established, burden shifts to party asserting self-acquisition.
Alienation by Karta — Sale in favour of one coparcener — Legal necessity must be strictly proved — Vague recitals insufficient.
Guardian’s sale of minor’s property — Court permission not conclusive — Surrounding circumstances can be scrutinised.
Will — Suspicious circumstances — Thumb impression though testator habitually signed — Execution 72 hours before death — Failure to dispel suspicion — Will invalid.
Concurrent findings of fact — Supreme Court reluctant to interfere — Limited modification upheld.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The dispute concerned 79 items of agricultural properties situated in Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.
Genealogy (Admitted)
Common ancestor: Pallikoodathan
Three sons:
Chidambaram
Sengan
Natesan
The core dispute arose between:
Duraisamy (Plaintiff)
Dorairaj (D2/Appellant)
Sons of Sengan.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
Suit O.S. No. 99 of 1987 for partition.
Claimed 1/4th share.
Pleaded properties were:
Ancestral, or
Acquired from income of ancestral lands (joint family nucleus).
Alleged no prior partition.
DEFENCE OF APPELLANT (D2)
Majority of properties were:
Self-acquisitions of Sengan, or
His own independent purchases.
Claimed independent income as contractor/businessman.
Asserted alienations by Sengan were valid and binding.
Relied upon alleged Will dated 24.11.1989.
COURTS BELOW
Trial Court (1992)
Granted 1/4th share with exclusions.
First Appellate Court (1995)
Modified decree — Plaintiff entitled to 5/16th share.
High Court (2009)
Confirmed 5/16th share.
Excluded:
Item 74,
Item 66,
4 cents in Item 36.
Rejected Will.
Scrutinised alienations item-wise.
CORE ISSUES
Whether suit properties were joint family properties?
Whether existence of ancestral nucleus was proved?
Whether alienations by Karta were binding?
Whether Will dated 24.11.1989 was valid?
Whether concurrent findings warranted interference?
ANALYSIS
1️⃣ Joint Family Nucleus & Burden of Proof
The Court relied on:
Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango
Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal (1976 MLJ)
Principle reaffirmed:
Mere existence of joint family is insufficient.
However, once ancestral property yielding income is shown, burden shifts to person asserting self-acquisition.
Here:
Items 14 & 15 admitted ancestral.
Revenue records showed cultivation, wells, pump sets.
Income-yielding nucleus established.
Appellant failed to discharge burden of proving exclusive source.
2️⃣ Independent Income of Sengan & D2
Court observed:
Sengan had some independent earnings.
But mere existence of income does not negate joint family contribution.
D2 was student till 1966 — claim of substantial savings doubtful.
Findings were factual and well-reasoned.
3️⃣ Alienations by Karta
Legal position:
Alienation must be for legal necessity or benefit of estate.
Sales in favour of one coparcener scrutinised strictly.
Courts below:
Upheld some sales.
Rejected others lacking proof of necessity.
Allowed D2 to establish medical expenses in final decree stage.
Supreme Court approved this calibrated approach.
4️⃣ Guardian Sale (Ex. B-2)
Though court permission existed:
High Court examined surrounding inconsistencies.
Found Trial Court had accepted transaction mechanically.
First Appellate Court correction upheld.
Principle: Court permission is not conclusive if circumstances suspicious.
5️⃣ Will dated 24.11.1989 (Ex. B-200)
Suspicious circumstances noted:
Executed 3 days before death.
Thumb impression though testator habitually signed.
Scribe was close relative.
Doubts regarding presence of scribe (election duty).
Additionally:
Rejection of Will not properly challenged earlier.
Attained finality.
Supreme Court upheld rejection.
6️⃣ Prior Partition — Not Established
Separate enjoyment, borrowings, irrigation facilities:
Do not amount to partition.
Clear intention to sever required.
No such evidence existed.
7️⃣ Limited Relief Granted by High Court
Properties purchased from third parties:
Item 66
Item 74
Part of Item 36
Rightly excluded from partition.
PRINCIPLES REAFFIRMED
Existence of income-yielding ancestral property shifts burden.
Self-acquisition must be clearly proved.
Alienation by Karta to coparcener strictly scrutinised.
Suspicious Will must be proved beyond doubt.
Concurrent factual findings rarely disturbed.
CONCLUSION
Supreme Court held:
High Court judgment well-reasoned.
No perversity or legal error.
Civil Appeals dismissed.
No costs.
