Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging concurrent findings in a partition suit involving 79 agricultural properties. The Court upheld the determination that most properties were joint Hindu family properties, rejecting claims of self-acquisition by the appellant. The Court affirmed that alienations by the family Karta to his son were not supported by legal necessity and therefore not binding on other coparceners. The alleged testamentary disposition was rejected due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The Court emphasized that concurrent factual findings by lower courts should not be disturbed unless perverse, which was not established in this case.
Headnote
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals arising from a family partition dispute concerning 79 agricultural properties -- The Court upheld concurrent findings that most properties were joint family properties -- The Court affirmed that alienations by Sengan (Karta) to his son Dorairaj were not supported by legal necessity -- The alleged Will dated 24.11.1989 was rejected due to suspicious circumstances -- The burden of proving self-acquisition rested on Dorairaj which he failed to discharge -- The presumption under Hindu law favored joint family status when properties stood in names of family members -- The Court declined to interfere with factual findings as they were not perverse -- The appeals were dismissed with costs
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the suit properties constituted joint Hindu family properties and whether alienations by the Karta were binding on the coparcenary
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts -- The Court affirmed that most suit properties were joint family properties -- The alienations by Sengan were not supported by legal necessity -- The alleged Will was rejected due to suspicious circumstances -- Costs were awarded against the appellant
2026 LawText (SC) (02) 17
Civil Appeal No(s). 2129-2130 of 2012
Sanjay Karol J. , Satish Chandra Sharm J.
Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Civil appeals arising from partition suit concerning agricultural properties
Remedy Sought
Appellant seeking reversal of lower court findings declaring properties as joint family and invalidating alienations
Filing Reason
Dispute over nature of 79 agricultural properties and validity of alienations by family Karta
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed partition suit declaring Plaintiff entitled to 1/4 share in most properties -- First Appellate Court modified preliminary decree -- Concurrent findings established joint family character of properties
Issues
Whether suit properties constituted joint Hindu family properties
Whether alienations by Karta were binding on coparcenary
Whether alleged Will was valid testamentary disposition
Submissions/Arguments
Properties were self-acquisitions from independent income
Alienations were for legal necessity and binding on family
Will was genuine disposition of testator's property
Ratio Decidendi
When property stands in name of Karta or family member, presumption arises in favor of joint family property -- Burden shifts to person claiming self-acquisition to prove independent income source -- Alienations by Karta require strict proof of legal necessity -- Testamentary dispositions executed under suspicious circumstances are invalid -- Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not interfered with unless perverse
Judgment Excerpts
The dispute pertain to 79 items of immovable properties
The suit for partition was instituted by Duraisamy, seeking partition and possession of his one-fourth share
These alienations were effected under various sale deeds
Reliance was placed by certain defendants on an unregistered Will dated 24.11.1989
The Trial Court framed issues relating to the nature and character of the suit properties
Procedural History
Suit filed as O.S. No. 99 of 1987 for partition -- Trial Court judgment dated 22.04.1992 decreed suit -- First Appeal A.S. No. 160 of 1994 and A.S. No. 161 of 1994 filed -- First Appellate Court judgment dated 26.09.1995 modified decree -- Civil Appeals 2129-2130 of 2012 filed before Supreme Court
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
