LexDORAIRAJ versus DORAISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 545 : 2026 INSC 126 Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 2129-2130 of 2012) 05 February 2026 [Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court exercised its power with restraint and precision by granting limited relief to the Appellant (D2) and whether it was justified in affirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court entitling plaintiff to 5/16th share. Headnotes† Suit – Partition – The suit for partition being O.S. No. 99 of 1987 was instituted by plaintiff-Dy, seeking partition and possession of his one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties – The case was founded on the premise that the suit properties constituted joint Hindu family properties – A substantial portion of the factual controversy also relates to a series of registered sale deeds executed by D1-S (father of Dy and Dj) in favour of D2-Dj – During the pendency of the suit, S died – Shortly thereafter, reliance was placed by certain defendants on an unregistered Will dated 24.11.1989, said to have been executed three days prior to his death – Plaintiff disputed the genuineness and validity of the Will – Trial Court declared that the Plaintiff was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties – The First Appellate Court modified the preliminary decree and declared the Plaintiff entitled to a 5/16th share in the suit schedule properties – The High Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2009, the High Court partly allowed the appeals and held that the plaintiff was entitled to 5/16th share, excluding Item No. 74, Item No. 66 and 4 cents out of 12 cents in Item No. 36 – Correctness: Held: The genealogy traced to one P and his three sons was not in dispute, nor was the fact that D1-S and his three sons namely, Plaintiff-Dy, D2-Dj, and the deceased R, constituted a coparcenary * Author 546 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports at the relevant time – The High Court observed that 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 – Significantly, the High Court also examined the factual position of the Appellant (D2) during the relevant period – On the basis of material on record, it noted that he was pursuing his studies till about 1966 and that his claim of having amassed substantial savings sufficient to purchase properties while still a student was subjected to careful scrutiny – The High Court’s reasoning on this aspect is neither conjectural nor speculative; it is rooted in a realistic appraisal of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances – The High Court correctly emphasized that all relevant conveyances described the interests conveyed as undivided shares, that there was no mutation evidencing division, and that there was no separate payment towards borrowings – In the absence of any declaration or conduct evidencing an intention to divide, the inference of continued joint family status was inevitable – The High Court then addressed with notable clarity; the validity of alienations effected by D1-S in favour of the Appellant (D2) as per various sale deeds Ex(s). B-17 to B-19 – It correctly distinguished between alienations for proved legal necessity and those which were legally impermissible – The High Court affirmed this calibrated approach, reiterating that alienations by a Karta in favour of one coparcener must be proved to be for legal necessity and that vague or general recitals are insufficient to bind the interests of other coparceners – Likewise, on the issue of the Will dated 24.11.1989 (Ex. B-200), the High Court’s reasoning is both legally and factually compelling – It noted that the testator was habitually signing documents but affixed only a thumb impression as far as this document is concerned; that the Will was allegedly executed barely 72 hours prior to death; 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 – These circumstances clearly warranted a finding of suspicion – The High Court further dealt with the impleadmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.