Does Law Presume Karta’s Acquisitions to Belong to the Joint Hindu Family?

One of the most recurring controversies in Hindu family law relates to the nature of properties acquired in the name of the Karta, the manager of a Hindu Joint Family. When the Karta purchases property, does the law presume that such acquisition automatically belongs to the joint family, or must other coparceners prove that it was bought from joint family funds? This issue has engaged courts for decades and was recently revisited by the Supreme Court in Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (2026 INSC 126), where the Court reaffirmed the principles governing the presumption attached to a Karta’s acquisitions and the burden of proof in partition disputes.

The doctrine governing this question lies at the intersection of classical Hindu law principles and modern rules of evidence. The presumption regarding Karta’s acquisitions is neither absolute nor mechanical. Courts examine factors such as the existence of an ancestral nucleus, the income derived from joint family properties, the independent earnings of the Karta, and the intention behind the purchase.

Presumption under Hindu Law: Joint Family Character

Hindu law recognises a rebuttable presumption that property acquired by the Karta during the subsistence of the joint family is joint family property if there exists an ancestral nucleus capable of generating income. The rationale is simple: since the Karta manages family resources, any acquisition made by him is presumed to be funded from those resources unless the contrary is proved.

However, this presumption does not arise in a vacuum. Two foundational elements must first be established:

1. Existence of ancestral or joint family property, and
2. Sufficient income from such property to enable further acquisitions.

Only after these are shown does the burden shift upon the Karta or the person claiming exclusive ownership to prove that the acquisition was made from independent sources.

Burden of Proof and Shifting Onus

Courts have consistently held that:

• Mere existence of a joint family does not imply that every property held by a member is joint family property.
• The initial burden lies on the person asserting joint family character to show the existence of a nucleus with adequate income.
• Once such nucleus is proved, the onus shifts to the Karta to demonstrate self-acquisition.

The Supreme Court in Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango (1954), laid down that proof of nucleus does not require mathematical precision; it is enough to show that the joint family possessed resources from which the property could reasonably have been purchased.

Similarly, in Mallesappa v. Mallappa (1961), the Court clarified that where the Karta had independent income, the presumption weakens, and the issue must be decided on probabilities and surrounding circumstances.

Factual Background

The litigation concerned the family of Pallikoodathan, whose three sons, Chidambaram, Sengan, and Natesan, constituted the original coparcenary. The suit was instituted by Duraisamy (plaintiff) against his brother Dorairaj (D2/appellant) seeking partition of joint family properties managed by their father Sengan, the admitted Karta.

Key features of the dispute included:

1. Existence of ancestral lands (Items 14 & 15) yielding agricultural income.
2. Multiple properties purchased in the name of the Karta and one coparcener.
3. Alienations by the Karta in favour of Dorairaj under several registered deeds.
4. A Will dated 24.11.1989 allegedly executed by the Karta shortly before death.

The plaintiff contended that all acquisitions were from the income of the ancestral nucleus and therefore bore the character of joint family property. The appellant argued that both he and his father had independent earnings and that many purchases were self-acquired.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether acquisitions standing in the name of the Karta/coparcener are presumed joint family properties?
2. Whether the appellant proved independent income sufficient to rebut the presumption?
3. Validity of alienations made by the Karta in favour of one coparcener.
4. Genuineness of the alleged Will executed three days before death.

Principles Reaffirmed by the Supreme Court

1. Existence of Ancestral Nucleus Shifts the Burden

The Court reiterated settled law that:

Proof of mere existence of a joint family does not automatically make every property joint; however, once it is shown that ancestral properties yielding income existed and acquisitions were made during jointness, the burden shifts to the person claiming self-acquisition.

Revenue records showed continuous cultivation of Items 14 & 15 with wells and pump sets, demolishing the appellant’s plea that they were unproductive.

2. Independent Income Must Be Proved, Not Asserted

The appellant relied on documents showing contractual work and employment of the Karta. The Court held that:

• Mere proof that the Karta had some earnings does not negate the contribution of joint family income.
• Hindu law does not require other coparceners to trace the exact rupee source of each purchase made by the Karta.

3. Separate Enjoyment ≠ Partition

Borrowings, installation of irrigation facilities, or individual transactions do not establish severance of status unless there is a clear intention to divide.

4. Alienations in Favour of One Coparcener

Alienations by the Karta were tested on the touchstone of legal necessity:

• Transactions supported by medical expenses or debt discharge were protected.
• Vague recitals were held insufficient to bind other coparceners.

5. Suspicious Will Rejected

The alleged Will was discarded because:

• The testator usually signed but affixed a thumb impression on this document.
• Executed 72 hours before death.
• Scribed by a relative whose presence was doubtful.
• Not challenged at appropriate stage, attained finality.

Conclusion

The ruling in Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (2026 INSC 126) reaffirms that the Karta holds family property in a fiduciary capacity and that acquisitions made in his name are presumed to be joint family assets once an ancestral income-yielding nucleus is shown. The burden then shifts to the person asserting self-acquisition to prove independent income and intention.

By upholding only those alienations backed by genuine legal necessity and rejecting a suspicious deathbed Will, the Court has protected the collective rights of coparceners while allowing room for bona fide individual ownership. The judgment strengthens evidentiary standards in partition disputes and underscores that transparency, clear intention, and proper proof are essential to displace the presumption of jointness.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams