Co-Tenancy Can't Be Allowed Based On Assumption Of Existence Joint Family, Must Prove Plot Is Ancestral: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court had held that co-tenancy cannot be allowed based on assumption of existence joint family. It held that party must prove plot is ancestral along with identity and continuity of entry.

Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,

“… plot in question was not proved to be ancestral as well as identity of plots and continuity of entry of the plot in question has not been established, as such, co-tenancy cannot be allowed only on the ground that there was presumption of joint family in the old time.”

Respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking declaration of co-tenancy with defendants 3-29 on grounds that the land was ancestral and was acquired by Hindu Joint Family. Possession was claimed by the parties. Trial Court dismissed the suit on grounds that common ancestry could not be proved.

The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal by the plaintiff, and the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner field by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The Court observed that the Trial Court, after perusing the evidence, had concluded that the property was not ancestral and the identity of the plot and continuity had not been established. It held that in view of the aforesaid findings, the Additional Commissioner could not have allowed the appeal based on presumption of Joint Hindu family and joint Hindu nucleus fund in earlier times.

In D.S. Lakshmaiah and another vs. L. Balasubramanyam and another, the Supreme Court held that,

“The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available.”

Further, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar & others, the Court held that the Trial Court judgment was correct and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

Case Title: Chhutta And Others v. the Board of Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 206

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 206

Click Here To Read/Download Order