Dorairaj vs Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.

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 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 impleadment applications filed by alleged heirs of R – Approach reflects a proper balance between substantive justice and procedural discipline – The impugned judgement is reasoned and borne out from the material on record. [Paras 28, 31, 33, 36, 38]