Ancestral Property Yielding Income Shifts Burden to Prove Self-Acquisition in Joint Hindu Family Partition Suits

Held: The Supreme Court held that once the existence of ancestral property yielding income and the subsistence of a joint Hindu family are established, the burden shifts to the coparcener asserting self-acquisition to prove that specific properties were purchased from independent income. Mere proof of separate earnings by the Karta or a coparcener does not automatically negate the joint family character of acquisitions made during the continuance of the coparcenary. Alienations by the Karta in favour of one coparcener must be strictly proved to be for legal necessity, and suspicious testamentary dispositions executed shortly before death without satisfactory explanation cannot be accepted.

Summary: The dispute arose from a long-standing partition suit concerning 79 items of agricultural properties in Perambalur Taluk. The parties traced their lineage to a common ancestor, Pallikoodathan, and the plaintiff sought partition claiming that the properties were joint Hindu family properties acquired from ancestral income, particularly from Item Nos. 14 and 15, which were admitted ancestral lands. The defendant-appellant contended that many properties were self-acquired either by Sengan, the Karta, through independent earnings from service, money-lending, and contractual work, or by the appellant himself from his independent business income. He further relied on several registered sale deeds executed in his favour and an unregistered Will dated 24.11.1989 allegedly executed shortly before Sengan’s death. The Trial Court granted a partial decree for partition; the First Appellate Court modified the share to 5/16th; and the High Court largely affirmed the findings while excluding certain items proven to be exclusive acquisitions of the appellant. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing joint Hindu family property and burden of proof, relying on settled precedents including Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, and upheld the High Court’s finding that the existence of ancestral income-bearing properties shifted the burden to the appellant to prove self-acquisition, which he failed to discharge convincingly. The Court also upheld the rejection of the Will on account of suspicious circumstances and noted that the rejection had attained finality.

Decision: The Civil Appeals were dismissed, the judgment of the High Court affirming the modified preliminary decree granting the plaintiff a 5/16th share (subject to exclusion of specific items such as Item Nos. 66, 74 and part of Item No. 36) was upheld, and no order as to costs was passed.