Karta’s property not treated as HUF asset if he can prove it was acquired from personal income without use of ancestral assets

On February 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India confirmed the Madras High Court’s stance, which stated that when acquisitions occur while a joint family is still intact, and there are ancestral properties generating income, the properties acquired in the name of the Karta are typically seen as joint family properties unless proven otherwise.

This judgement was made in the backdrop of a case filed by a brother who claimed that the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) bought certain properties using income from the family’s ancestral property and therefore, those self-acquired properties should be divided among family members and treated as ancestral property.

Shruti Kanodia, Managing Partner at Sagus Legal, said that in court, he (brother) was able to prove that certain properties were income yielding ancestral properties that had been inherited from their grandfather. It was also proved that the joint family continued to exist at the time of filing of the case.


Kanodia says: “As such, there was a legal presumption that even though certain properties may have been acquired and held in the name of the Karta or other individual members of the joint family, they were in fact joint family properties liable to a partition.”

However, according to Kanodia, the burden of proving that such properties were self-acquired, that is, properties acquired by a joint family member from his own independent sources of income, fell on the brother and ultimately he could not prove it to the satisfaction of the court.

Also read: HUF land dispute reaches Supreme Court: One brother gets 5/16th share, other retains self-acquired properties

Karta’s property is not treated as joint family asset if he can prove it was self-acquired from his own income without use of ancestral nucleus

Soniya Putta, Partner at Solomon & Co says that the Judgement reiterates the settled principles governing partition of joint Hindu family properties that in the absence of any partition, properties acquired by the Karta, especially with ancestral property yielding income, become joint family assets.

Putta says: “If a Karta can prove beyond doubt that the property is self-acquired and purchased from his own income and without any use of income from the ancestral nucleus then self-acquired property of the Karta does not become family property as has been clarified in the Judgement.”

According to Suresh Palav, Partner, IndiaLaw LLP, if a party claims that a property is ancestral or part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), they must clearly establish in their documents and pleadings who the common ancestor is, how the property devolved through the family, and whether a HUF nucleus or common family fund existed.

Palav says: “In the absence of such evidence, courts generally treat the property as self-acquired and reject claims for partition or ownership due to failure to establish a legally recognisable title.”

According to Putta, the Supreme court confirmed that existence of a joint family does not by itself render all properties as joint family properties. Similarly, 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 that it was self-acquired.

Putta says that ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view rejecting the simplistic assumption that the mere existence of some independent earnings would automatically negate the contribution of joint family income.

Putta says the Supreme court is of the view that a realistic appraisal of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances will have to be undertaken by courts to reach a conclusion about whether the property is a joint family property or a self-acquired property.

If a family partition has already taken place orally, it is prudent to formalise it through a registered partition deed

According to Palav, an oral partition of joint family property is legally valid under Hindu law, though it is often difficult to prove at a later stage.

Palav says: “As a matter of prudence, families should formalize the arrangement through a properly drafted and, where applicable, registered partition deed or at least a well structured memorandum of family settlement, so that shares, boundaries, and assets are clearly documented and not re-litigated by the next generation.”

Supreme Court precedent exists

Vishal Gehrana, Advocate on Record, associated with Karanjawala & Co, said to ET Wealth Online that in the recent judgment of Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., pronounced on February 5, 2026, the Supreme Court has made this position abundantly clear.

In simple words, if a Hindu joint family owns an ancestral property that earns income, and that income is used to buy new property while the family continues as a joint unit, the new property is considered part of the joint family assets.

The law presumes that when ancestral property exists and produces income, any acquisitions made during the life of the joint family are joint family property unless proven otherwise. Just as a river carries along its tributaries, an income-earning ancestral property leaves its mark on everything acquired from it.

Gehrana says: "The Supreme Court, in paragraphs 29 and 30 of its judgment, expressly reiterated this principle."

According to Gehrana, in practice, once it is shown that there is ancestral property, that it earns income, and that the Karta or a coparcener made purchases during the joint family's existence, the new properties are presumed to be joint family property.

It is not necessary to trace exactly which rupees from the ancestral property were used for each purchase. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that a property is entirely self-acquired.

Gehrana says: "This means the law favours the joint family and protects the rights of other members, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The tree is known by its fruit and so is property known by the nucleus from which it springs."