Properties Acquired by Karta Presumed to be Joint Family Property

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, in the case of Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (2026) observed that once the existence of an ancestral, income-yielding property is established, any subsequent acquisition made by the Karta during the subsistence of a joint Hindu family is presumed to be joint family property, unless the person claiming self-acquisition discharges the burden of proof with cogent evidence. 

What was the Background of Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The litigation stemmed from a partition suit filed in 1987 by Duraisamy against his father Sengan and brother Dorairaj, relating to 79 items of immovable properties. 
• The properties were largely agricultural lands situated in Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. 
• The plaintiff claimed that the properties were joint Hindu family properties traceable to ancestral lands and income generated therefrom. 
• Dorairaj, the appellant before the Supreme Court, asserted that several properties were either the self-acquisitions of his father Sengan or purchases made by him from his own independent income earned as a contractor and businessman. 
• The Appellant relied on multiple sale deeds executed in his favour by Sengan and an unregistered Will dated November 24, 1989, allegedly executed shortly before Sengan's death. 
• The Appellant, one of the brothers/coparceners in the joint Hindu family property, resisted another brother-plaintiff's suit for partition seeking his share in the joint property. 
• It was pleaded in the plaint that the family remained joint in residence, cultivation, enjoyment, and management, and that there had never been any partition, either oral or written. 
• As per the plaint, properties purchased in Karta's name or in the names of other family members were, in substance, acquisitions made for and on behalf of the family, thereby constituting joint family property. 
• The Appellant opposed the plaintiff's claim of partition, contending that several properties were his self-acquired property and acquired by their father from his non-ancestral income. 
• The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 
• The First Appellate Court and High Court decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a 5/16th share in the joint property that was inducted by the Karta, while excluding only Items 66, 74, and part of Item 36. 
• The excluded items were proved to be the Appellant's self-acquisitions from third parties. 
• Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and First Appellate Court. 
• The Court observed that once the existence of ancestral properties capable of yielding income is established, the onus shifted to the Appellant to prove that subsequent acquisitions were made from independent sources. 
• The Court stated, "Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of the joint family, and where ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved." 
• The High Court recognized 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. 
• The Court noted that the High Court had already granted limited relief to Dorairaj by excluding specific properties that were demonstrably purchased from non-coparceners. 
• Barring these exclusions, the Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings. 
• The appeal was dismissed. 

What is Joint Family Property? 

About: 

• Joint family property, also known as ancestral property under Hindu law, refers to property that has been inherited by a Hindu from his father, father's father, or father's father's father. 
• Joint family property belongs collectively to all members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), rather than to any single individual. 
• Male members traditionally acquired an interest in joint family property by birth, giving them a birthright in the property. 
• Under traditional Hindu law, male descendants up to three generations from the original owner acquire a birthright in joint family property. 
• After the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, daughters also acquire birthright in joint family property equal to sons. 
• No single coparcener (member with birthright) can claim a specific portion of joint family property until partition, as each has an undivided right in the whole property. 
• The property is managed by the Karta, usually the eldest male member of the family. 

Management and Alienation: 

• The Karta manages joint family property on behalf of all coparceners but has limited powers of alienation. 
• The Karta cannot alienate joint family property except for legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or with the consent of all coparceners. 
• This restriction exists to protect the interests of all family members who have a birthright in the property. 

Nature of Rights: 

• Each coparcener has an undivided interest in the entire joint family property, not in any specific portion. 
• The rights become definite only upon partition of the property among the coparceners. 
• Until partition occurs, the property remains joint and undivided among all members. 

Difference Between Joint Family Property and Self-Acquired Property: 

Source of Acquisition: 

• Joint family property is inherited property that devolves through three generations (father, father's father, father's father's father). 
• Self-acquired property is property that an individual has acquired through his own efforts, without using any joint family resources or nucleus. 
• Self-acquired property may be obtained through personal income, individual enterprise, or personal skill without drawing upon ancestral resources. 

Ownership Rights: 

• Joint family property belongs collectively to all coparceners, who acquire interest by birth. 
• Self-acquired property belongs exclusively to the individual who acquired it. 
• The owner of self-acquired property has absolute rights over it, including the right to sell, mortgage, gift, or bequeath it without requiring consent from other family members. 

Transmission: 

• Joint family property automatically devolves by survivorship among coparceners. 
• Self-acquired property does not automatically become joint family property merely because the owner has sons or daughters. 
• When joint family property is partitioned, the divided shares become self-acquired property of the respective recipients. 

Conversion: 

• A person can voluntarily convert his self-acquired property into joint family property through the doctrine of "blending." 
• Blending requires clear intention to abandon separate rights and merge the property with joint family property. 
• The mere fact that other family members used the property or benefited from it does not automatically convert self-acquired property into joint family property. 

Income Generation: 

• Income generated from joint family property forms part of the joint family property. 
• The income generated from self-acquired property remains self-acquired, unless specifically blended with joint family property. 

Burden of Proof: 

• The burden of proving that property is joint family property lies on the person making such a claim. 
• However, the burden shifts to the person claiming it as self-acquired if evidence of existing nucleus (ancestral property) is established. 
• Once ancestral, income-yielding property is proven to exist, subsequent acquisitions by the Karta are presumed to be joint family property unless proven otherwise. 

Rights of Disposal: 

• In joint family property, no individual member can unilaterally dispose of the property without consent or legal justification. 
• In self-acquired property, the owner has complete freedom to dispose of the property as he wishes.