While hearing an appeal assailing from partition dispute in Hindu Law, Supreme Court of India provides critical clarity on the "legal necessity" required for a Karta to alienate properties to a single coparcener and reinforces the "suspicious circumstances" rule for invalidating deathbed Wills involving thumb impressions.

The matter is stemmed from a protracted family dispute concerning the partition and alienation of 79 items of agricultural properties and the genealogy centered on Sengan, the family patriarch (Karta), who managed the agricultural affairs for himself and his two sons, Duraisamy (the Plaintiff) and Dorairaj (Appellant/Defendant No. 2).

Upon Sengan's death in 1989, a suit was instituted seeking a one-fourth share in the properties, predicated on the claim that they were either ancestral or acquired through joint family income.

The Appellant contended that most properties were the self-acquisitions of Sengan or himself, funded by independent income from government contracts and money-lending. The matter reached the Supreme Court following concurrent but modified findings by the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the Madras High Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, upholding the High Court’s modified decree that recognized the joint Hindu family character of the majority of the suit properties. The Bench emphasized that while the mere existence of a joint family does not automatically render all acquisitions "joint," a different legal presumption arises when an income-yielding ancestral nucleus is proven.

In this case, Item Nos. 14 and 15 were admittedly ancestral agricultural lands; despite the Appellant's claim that they were water-logged and unproductive, revenue records (Adangals) clearly evidenced continuous cultivation with the aid of wells and oil-motor pumps.

Consequently, the Apex Court held that once an income-yielding ancestral nucleus is established, the burden of prove to demonstrate the independent source of fundsand self-acquisition shifts to the claimant.

When the Apex Court analyzed the alienations made by Sengan (karta) in favor of the Appellant (D2), it observed that a Karta's power to alienate joint property is strictly conditional upon "legal necessity" and in the present case only those transactions supported by specific proof of medical expenses or debt discharge.

Supreme Court also held that vague or general recitals in sale deeds are insufficient to bind the interests of other coparceners,and that the separate enjoyment of portions of land or individual borrowings do not constitute a "partition in law" unless there is a clear, unequivocal intention to sever the joint status.

Since, the significant portion of the judgment addressed the unregistered Will, which was purportedly executed by Sengan (Karta) just three days before his death, the Supreme Court affirmed Will's rejection based on suspicious circumstances, observing that the testator, who was habitually capable of signing his name, had only affixed a thumb impression on the document.

The timing of the execution (72 hours prior to death) and the use of a relative as a scribe instead of a professional further weakened its credibility.

In Conclusion, the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the High Court with its limited modification of First Appellatte Court's findings, however, it precluded from reviving the issue of the Will as its initial rejection by the Trial Court had not been challenged at the appropriate appellate stage.

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL AND JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA.