In a long-running family property dispute that began nearly four decades ago, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed two civil appeals filed by Dorairaj, bringing finality to a bitter fight over agricultural lands spread across Tamil Nadu.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the Madras High Court’s ruling that the properties largely formed part of a joint Hindu family and confirmed the plaintiff’s entitlement to a 5/16th share.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces its roots to a joint Hindu family headed by Pallikoodathan, whose descendants owned and cultivated extensive agricultural lands in and around Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli district.
Duraisamy, one of the sons of Sengan, filed a partition suit in 1987 seeking division of 79 immovable properties, claiming they were joint family assets acquired from ancestral income. His brother Dorairaj opposed the suit, asserting that many of the lands were either his own purchases or his father’s self-acquired properties.
Over the years, the matter travelled from the trial court to the first appellate court, then to the Madras High Court, and finally to the Supreme Court.
Core Dispute Before the Court
At the heart of the case was a familiar question under Hindu law: when a family owns ancestral land that generates income, who bears the burden of proving whether later purchases are joint family properties or personal acquisitions?
Dorairaj argued that the plaintiff failed to show any income-producing family nucleus capable of funding later purchases. He also relied on multiple sale deeds, guardianship sales, and an unregistered Will allegedly executed by his father just days before his death.
Duraisamy, on the other hand, maintained that the family lived jointly, cultivated ancestral lands together, and that most purchases were made during this period of unity, making them joint assets by default.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the existence of ancestral properties-particularly Item Nos. 14 and 15-was not disputed. Revenue records showed consistent cultivation supported by wells and pump sets, undermining the claim that these lands were unproductive.
“The High Court correctly held that once ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, the burden shifts to the person claiming self-acquisition,” the Bench observed.
On Dorairaj’s claim of independent income, the Court found that while some earnings were established, they did not automatically disprove the joint family character of properties acquired during the subsistence of the family. The judges pointed out that Hindu law does not require mathematical precision in tracing funds for each purchase.
The Bench was also unconvinced by the argument that separate enjoyment or individual borrowings amounted to a prior partition. “There must be a clear intention to sever joint status,” the Court noted, adding that such intention was missing in the present case.
Will and Alienations Under Scrutiny
The Court agreed with the High Court’s rejection of the unregistered Will dated 24 November 1989. It flagged several suspicious circumstances, including the use of a thumb impression instead of a signature, execution just 72 hours before death, and doubts about the scribe’s presence.
Importantly, the Bench noted that the Will’s rejection had already attained finality, as it was not properly challenged earlier.
As for sale deeds executed by Sengan in favour of Dorairaj, the Court upheld the item-wise scrutiny adopted by the lower courts. Only those alienations backed by proven legal necessity were protected; others could not bind the interests of all coparceners.
Final Decision
After reviewing the entire record, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s carefully balanced judgment. Except for a few properties rightly excluded as Dorairaj’s exclusive purchases, the finding that the remaining properties were joint family assets was upheld.
“The impugned judgment is reasoned and borne out from the material on record,” the Bench said while dismissing the civil appeals. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 2129–2130 of 2012
Decision Date: 5 February 2026
