The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Civil Appeals in the case of Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., affirming the decision of the Madras High Court regarding the partition of joint Hindu family properties. The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, held that once the existence of income-yielding ancestral properties is established, the burden shifts to the individual family member to prove that subsequent acquisitions were self-acquired.
Background of the Dispute
The litigation, described by the Court as a “long-drawn family dispute,” concerned the partition and alienation of agricultural properties in Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The suit schedule comprised 79 items of immovable property.
The dispute involved the family of one Pallikoodathan, the common ancestor. The central figure was his son, Sengan, who was the father of the Plaintiff, Duraisamy, and the Appellant (Defendant No. 2), Dorairaj. The Plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 99 of 1987 seeking a partition and possession of his one-fourth share, contending that the properties were joint Hindu family assets acquired from the income of ancestral properties. The Plaintiff asserted that the family remained joint in residence, cultivation, and management, and that Sengan acted as the Karta.
Sengan died on November 27, 1989, during the pendency of the suit. A key point of contention arose regarding an unregistered Will dated November 24, 1989, purportedly executed three days before his death, bequeathing properties to certain grandchildren.
The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in 1992, granting the Plaintiff a 1/4th share while excluding certain items. The First Appellate Court modified this in 1995, declaring the Plaintiff entitled to a 5/16th share. Subsequently, the High Court of Madras, in its judgment dated August 12, 2009, partly allowed the Second Appeals, excluding specific items (Item No. 74, Item No. 66, and a portion of Item No. 36) from the partition on the grounds that they were purchased from third parties.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The Appellant’s Contentions: Senior Counsel for the Appellant argued that the lower courts erred in treating the suit properties as joint family properties in their entirety. The Appellant contended that the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an “income-yielding joint family nucleus” capable of funding subsequent acquisitions.
It was submitted that Sengan had substantial independent sources of income from government service, money-lending, and contracting, which explained the acquisitions in his name. Furthermore, the Appellant claimed to have independent income as a contractor since the mid-1960s, justifying the properties purchased in his own name. The Appellant also defended the validity of alienations made by Sengan for family necessity and the genuineness of the Will dated November 24, 1989.
The Respondent’s Contentions: The Respondents argued that the ancestral origin of specific properties (Item Nos. 14 and 15) was admitted. They submitted that once it was shown that ancestral properties yielded income during the subsistence of the joint family, the burden shifted to the Appellant to prove self-acquisition, which he failed to discharge. The Respondents supported the High Court’s findings on the invalidity of the Will and the non-binding nature of certain alienations.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivering the judgment, observed that the High Court had correctly appreciated the pleadings and the settled principles of Hindu law.
On Joint Family Nucleus: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reliance on the precedents of Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal and others and Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. regarding the burden of proof.
The Court noted that Item Nos. 14 and 15 were admittedly ancestral. Rejecting the Appellant’s plea that these lands were incapable of yielding income, the Court pointed to revenue records (Adangal extracts) evidencing continuous cultivation and the existence of wells and pump sets.
The Court observed:
“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.”
On Independent Income: While acknowledging Sengan’s independent earnings, the Court held that the “mere existence of some independent earnings would automatically negate the contribution of joint family income” was a simplistic assumption correctly rejected by the High Court. Regarding the Appellant (D2), the Court noted that his claims of having amassed savings to purchase property while still a student were subjected to “careful scrutiny” and rightly discarded.
On Partition and Alienation: The Court affirmed that separate enjoyment or individual borrowings do not, by themselves, establish a partition in law absent a clear intention to sever the joint status. Regarding alienations, the Court upheld the item-wise scrutiny conducted by the lower courts, stating that “alienations by a Karta in favour of one coparcener must be proved to be for legal necessity and that vague or general recitals are insufficient to bind the interests of other coparceners.”
On the Will: The Supreme Court found the High Court’s rejection of the Will (Ex. B-200) to be “legally and factually compelling.” The Court highlighted the suspicious circumstances:
“The testator was habitually signing documents but affixed only a thumb impression as far as this document is concerned; that the Will was allegedly executed barely 72 hours prior to death; that it was scribed by a close relative instead of a professional scribe; and that the scribe’s presence itself was doubtful due to election duty.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was reasoned and supported by the material on record. The Court appreciated the High Court’s “restraint and precision” in excluding specific items (Nos. 66, 74, and part of 36) from partition where independent purchase from third parties was proved.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court held:
“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.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.
Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2129-2130 of 2012
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
