Title Deeds Alone Don’t Prove Ownership in Joint Hindu Family Property, Says Supreme Court

In ‘Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.’, the Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's findings that declared the majority of the disputed properties as Joint Hindu Family assets.

The litigation stemmed from a complex family dispute over the partition of 79 agricultural properties. The Karta of the Hindu joint family, during his lifetime, executed multiple registered sale deeds transferring joint family properties to only one of his sons. Another son filed a partition suit claiming his share, arguing that the properties were part of the joint family and that the transfers to his brother lacked genuine necessity and were not binding on the rest of the family.

“The Supreme Court, upholding the Madras High Court's judgment, has held that alienations (transfers) made by a Karta in favour of one coparcener must be strictly proven to be for "legal necessity". Furthermore, the Court established that because the family had admitted ancestral properties capable of yielding income, any subsequent properties acquired in the Karta's name during the existence of the joint family are presumed to be joint family properties, unless the contrary is explicitly proven,” says Astha Sharma, Partner, AQUILAW.

This ruling is a strong protective measure for joint family members, ensuring that a Karta cannot arbitrarily alienate shared assets to favour one heir over the others, she adds.

Key Takeaways From The Ruling:

Can property standing in the name of the Karta or one son be treated as their personal asset?

In this case, the Supreme Court looked beyond the name on the document and focused on the family’s financial reality. The properties were purchased when the joint family was admittedly in possession of agricultural lands and income, and there was no convincing proof of any separate earnings of the individual in whose name the purchase was made.

In that factual backdrop, the Court held that the properties could not be ring-fenced as self-acquired. The ruling sends a clear message that within a functioning Hindu joint family, title deeds alone do not determine ownership, what matters is whether the acquisition was supported by the common family nucleus.

Who had to prove the source of money in these transactions?

The party claiming exclusive ownership was unable to show any independent income or separate funding for the purchases. The Court, therefore, placed the evidentiary burden on that person and found that it had not been discharged.

“This is significant because in many family disputes, a bare assertion of self-acquisition is often made without financial records to back it up. The judgment reinforces that when a joint family nucleus is shown to exist, the person asserting individual ownership must bring clear proof of separate means,” says Adnan Siddiqui, Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys.

Did separate living and separate cultivation amount to a partition?

“The facts showed that the family members were cultivating different portions of land and managing their affairs with a degree of independence, but there was no document, no prior litigation, and no unequivocal act demonstrating an intention to sever the joint status. The Court treated these arrangements as matters of convenience rather than a legal partition. This reflects the ground reality of agrarian families where practical division of work does not necessarily translate into a formal partition in law,” says Siddiqui.

Was the Karta entitled to transfer the property to one son through a Will or sale?

The Karta attempted to channel the property in favour of one branch of the family without establishing legal necessity, benefit to the estate, or consent of the other coparceners. The Court held that such a unilateral act could not defeat the equal rights of the remaining coparceners.

Siddiqui points out that this finding is particularly important because it prevents the use of testamentary or transactional devices to disturb the balance of coparcenary rights in the absence of a recognised legal justification. “Taken together, the judgment reads as a fact-sensitive reaffirmation that the character of joint family property cannot be altered by documentation alone, nor can coparcenary rights be diluted by informal family arrangements or unilateral acts of the Karta,” he says.