Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (D) 2026 INSC 126 - Hindu Law - Joint Family - Partition - Will
Hindu Law - Joint Family - Partition - Separate enjoyment of portions, installation of irrigation facilities, or even obtaining borrowings individually, do not by themselves establish partition in law. What is required is a clear and unequivocal intention to sever the joint status. In the absence of any declaration or conduct evidencing an intention to divide, the inference of continued joint family status was inevitable. (Para 32) proof of the mere existence of a joint family does not by itself render all properties as joint family properties, but equally, once it is established that ancestral properties yielding income existed and acquisitions were made during the continuance of the joint family, the burden shifts to the person asserting self-acquisition. (Para 29) Hindu law does not require other coparceners to establish with precision the exact source of funds for each acquisition made by the Karta. Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of the joint family, and where ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved. (Para 30)
Will - When the testator was habitually signing documents but affixed only a thumb impression in the Will and the Will was allegedly executed barely 72 hours prior to death and that it was scribed by a close relative instead of a professional scribe; and that the scribe’s presence itself was doubtful due to election duty - SC held: These circumstances clearly warranted a finding of suspicion. (Para 35)
Case Info
Case Information
Case name and neutral citation:Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) through LRs & Ors., 2026 INSC 126
Coram:Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Judgment date:05 February 2026
Case laws and citations referred:The judgment expressly refers to:
- Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango & Ors., 1954 1 SCC 544
- Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal & Ors., MLJ (II) 1976 225
Statutes / laws referred:The Court applies general principles of Hindu law relating to: joint Hindu family, coparcenary property, karta’s powers of alienation for legal necessity, burden of proof regarding self-acquisitions versus joint family property, and proof of Wills under the law of evidence and succession. (No specific statutory provisions are quoted in the extracted text, but the reasoning is grounded in Hindu joint family law and testamentary principles.)
Brief Summary (three sentences)
The case concerns a long‑running partition dispute among members of a Hindu joint family over 79 items of mainly agricultural properties in Perambalur Taluk, with core issues about whether they were joint family assets, the validity of alienations by the karta (Sengan) in favour of one son (Dorairaj), and the effect of a disputed Will executed just before his death. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the suit properties were largely joint family properties, that only a few items purchased from third parties were the exclusive properties of Dorairaj, that several alienations by the karta were binding only where legal necessity was proved, and that the suspicious Will had rightly been rejected and had in any event attained finality. Consequently, the Court affirmed the plaintiff’s 5/16th share in the joint properties (subject to the specific exclusions already granted by the High Court) and dismissed the civil appeals without costs.
