Mere Common Ancestry Not Enough To Prove Joint Family Property: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a property dispute where the parties are descendants of a common ancestor, has held that the property cannot be presumed to be a joint family property merely on that basis, and that the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the property is joint family property lies on the plaintiff. 

The bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed; 

"The Appellate Court has rightly held that only because the original ancestor was one Mahadev any land which is recorded in the name of successors of Mahadev cannot be inferred to be joint family property being descended from Mahadev unless some documents to that effect are shown. The Appellate Court has held that there is no order nor any material to show that the ancestor of the branch of plaintiffs namely Nankuva was recorded on the lands in the 8 survey numbers, which are subject matter of temporary injunction and therefore, prima facie there is no material on record to infer that the lands are joint family properties".

A petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court, wherein the appeal of the defendant was allowed, and the Trial Court's order for a temporary injunction was set aside. 

Per the facts, a suit was filed by the petitioners for a declaration and a permanent injunction regarding a disputed property. It was contended that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 28 all belonged to the same joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara School, and there has been no partition between the parties. 

The petitioner argued that all parties have descended from common ancestors named Mahadev, and the suit properties are 8 parcels of land in District Shahdol. 

The Trial Court had granted a temporary injunction to the plaintiffs for the 8 parcels of land and directed the defendants neither to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said lands by the plaintiff nor to alienate the property or create third-party rights.

The defendants challenged the said order before the Appellate Court, which set aside the temporary injunction order. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Court erred in vacating the temporary injunction, as the Trial Court had rightly held that, prima facie, the properties seemed to be joint family properties. 

The counsel for the defendants contended that there could be no presumption of the joint family because the common ancestor was many generations ago, and at such a distance of generations, the property could not have been inferred to be a joint family property. 

The bench noted that the Appellate Court rightly held that the property cannot be presumed to be a joint family property, but the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prima facie show the same. 

The bench further observed that the Trial Court had rightly held that the burden is on the defendants to rebut that the property is not joint family property. 

Thus, the bench held that the Appellate Court had rightly held that, only because the original ancestor was one Mahadev, any land recorded in the name of the successors cannot be inferred to be joint family property. The bench concluded, 

"The Appellate Court has held that there is no order nor any material to show that the ancestor of the branch of plaintiffs namely Nankuva was recorded on the lands in the 8 survey numbers, which are subject matter of temporary injunction and therefore, prima facie there is no material on record to infer that the lands are joint family properties". 

Therefore, the bench dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: Kedar Prasad Gupta v Satya Prakash Gupta [MP-1810-2026]

For Plaintiff: Advocate Yogesh Singh Baghel

For Defendants: Advocate Kaustubh Shankaer Jha

Click here to read/download the Order