The Bombay High Court has held that the mere execution of a family arrangement does not, by itself, establish that the properties dealt with therein are Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties. The Court observed that a family arrangement cannot be elevated into proof of the existence of an HUF in the absence of foundational evidence establishing the existence of such an HUF and an ancestral nucleus.

Justice Farhan P. Dubash was hearing an interim application filed in a partition suit instituted by the plaintiffs seeking declarations that certain properties constituted the assets of the "Jotumal and Sons HUF", partition of those properties, and consequential reliefs including cancellation of certain gift deeds and transfer documents. The plaintiffs also sought interim protection restraining the defendants from alienating or dealing with the suit properties during the pendency of the suit. They contended that the suit properties were acquired from an ancestral nucleus and relied, inter alia, upon a Deed of Dissolution of 1956 and a Family Arrangement dated 15 February 2010 to contend that the defendants themselves had treated the properties as HUF properties.

The Court observed that there is no legal presumption that every Hindu family possesses joint family property or that every property standing in the name of a family member is HUF property. It held that the burden lies upon the party asserting such a claim to first establish the existence of a joint family nucleus of sufficient strength and a reasonable nexus between that nucleus and the acquisition of the properties sought to be impressed with the character of HUF properties.

The Court noted that merely asserting that the family was engaged in several businesses, or that income was generated from those businesses, cannot substitute for legal proof when no contemporaneous evidence capable of even prima facie establishing that the acquisitions were made from joint family funds was produced.

Rejecting the plaintiffs' reliance on the Family Arrangement dated 15 February 2010, the Court held that the mere execution of a family arrangement does not, by itself, determine the juridical character of the properties dealt with therein. It observed that the fact that parties chose to settle disputes amongst themselves could not be treated as proof of the existence of an HUF, particularly when no foundational evidence had been produced to establish the existence of such an HUF.

“… mere execution of a family arrangement does not, by itself, determine the juridical character of the properties dealt with therein. Whether parties chose to settle disputes amongst themselves cannot be elevated into proof of the existence of an HUF, particularly in the complete absence of foundational evidence establishing the existence of such HUF,” the Court observed.

The Court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their allegations of fraud, coercion and undue influence regarding the gift deed and had not established a prima facie right warranting interim protection. Accordingly, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case, the Court dismissed the interim application seeking injunctions against the defendants.

Case Title: Arti Varun Kejriwal v. Vandana Vinay Awatramani [Interim Application No. 989 of 2026 in Suit No. 17 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 306

Click Here To Read/Download Order