The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the mere existence of a joint family does not establish the existence of a joint family fund from which the property was purchased. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 392]

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed,

"Existence of joint family is not a proof of existence of joint family fund. Same is required to be proved as any other fact by the defendants. Except showing that there was 6-7 bighas of land with the father, defendants could not show the existence of family fund, out of which, the suit land was purchased". 

The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 5 bighas and 18 biswas. The land was purchased through a registered sale deed dated August 20, 1998, which was executed in the name of the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff and the defendants were real brothers and sons of Shiv Narayan Sharma. The plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking restoration of possession of land on the basis of his title derived from the registered sale deed. 

The defendants, however, disputed his exclusive ownership. The defendants argued that although the sale deed was executed in the plaintiff's name, the property was actually purchased from the joint family funds and therefore constituted joint family property. 

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court on November 2, 2018, affirmed the decree dated December 24, 2011. The defendants thereafter approached the High Court in a second appeal. 

Before the High Court, the counsel for the defendants submitted that their father owned around 6-7 bighas of agricultural land and that the disputed property was purchased from the proceeds generated from that land. It was argued that since the plaintiff was the eldest son, the sale deed was executed in his name but purchased through joint family funds. 

The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants failed to prove the nucleus constituting family funds. 

The court noted that the sale deed was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and therefore there is a presumption that the property belongs to him. The bench emphasized that the burden to prove joint family and joint family fund was upon the defendants to succeed in the case. 

The bench highlighted:

"Merely because father was having some land is not sufficient to prove that there was sufficient income from the land out of which the suit property was purchased in the name of plaintiff. On the other hand, plaintiff has pleaded and proved that he was in employment and out of the earnings from the employment and also by borrowing certain amount, he purchased the land. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings with regard to non-existence of the family fund". 

Thus, the bench held that the impugned order did not warrant any interference and dismissed the appeal.