A recent ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court established that anyone claiming joint family funds were used to buy land must provide proof. Simply stating it is not enough to make the land joint family property. Based on this decision, two brothers (Vinod and Deendayal) lost 5 bigha 18 biswa land which their father purchased in 1998 in their elder brother’s (Kailash) name.
This land is located in Morena and was bought through a registered sale deed dated August 20, 1998, in Kailash’s name. Vinod and Deendayal were unhappy with this arrangement and stopped Kailash from taking sole possession of this land. They claimed their late father had purchased it using money from the joint family and so the land belonged to their joint family.
Advocate Rajeev Shrivastava representing Vinod and Deendayal argued before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that their late father had 6-7 bighas of land and from the proceeds of this land, the 5 bigha 18 biswa land was purchased in Kailash’s name since he was the eldest son.
Kailash did not deny this fact and told the court that his late father indeed cultivated the other lands and a joint family and joint family property did exist, but this particular 5 bigha 18 biswa land was bought from his salary and loans taken by him alone.
On September 25, 2026, Kailash, the elder brother, won the case in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Also read: Not all family properties are ancestral: Son has no birthright in father’s self-acquired assets
How did Kailash win the land case?
Adnan Siddiqui, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online that Kailash had a registered sale deed dated August 20, 1998, and his name was on it, and his brothers, Vinod and Deendayal, did not dispute that. The Madhya Pradesh High Court therefore started from the position that the land was his, and if the younger brothers wanted it treated as family property, they had to prove it. The younger brothers failed to prove it.
Siddiqui says that the younger brothers' version of the story is one many families would recognise. Their father, Shiv Narayan Sharma, had six or seven bighas of farmland, and they said the income from it paid for the new purchase. The sale deed went Kailash's name because he was the eldest brother. The Madhya Pradesh High Court never called this story false. The court said only that owning some land does not prove the land earned enough to buy more. Kailash, for his part, showed that he was employed and had bought the land with his earnings and some borrowed money.
The younger brothers also leaned on Kailash's own plaint, which admitted that the family was joint. The Madhya Pradesh High Court was clear that this did not help them. A joint family and a joint family fund are different things, and the fund has to be proved with evidence like any other fact. However, the younger brothers failed to prove that their father had purchased this 5 bigha land using joint family funds.
According to Siddiqui, a registered sale deed is hard to shake, and "everybody knew it was a family purchase" is not evidence. Arrangements between relatives, like putting the deed in the eldest son's name, mean little in court without records showing who paid what, and when.
What does Hindu law say?
Under Hindu law, if an male member of the family buys a property with his own earnings or other separate funds, without using a joint family funds then this property is his self-acquired property which he can sell it, gift it or leave it to anyone he likes as his sons get no right in this self-acquired property by birth. However, Siddiqui says that if this property is ancestral property then his sons would have a right in it.
But if the property is bought with someone else's money but held in the male member's name it can raise the issue of benami ownership under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Siddiqui says: "Self-acquired status depends on the money really being his, whether he earned it, was gifted it or inherited it as separate property." However, if a father executes a Will giving his properties to someone else, then the Will prevails.
Siddiqui says: "Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lets a Hindu dispose of property this way, and that includes leaving a son out altogether. A son who feels wronged can only attack the will itself, by arguing that it was not properly executed, that the circumstances were suspicious, or that the father was not of sound mind when he signed."
According to Siddiqui if a father dies without a will, Sections 8 to 10 apply which means that the property goes first to Class I heirs, who take together and in equal shares. They are his widow, sons, daughters and mother, plus the children of any son or daughter who died before him, who share that parent's portion.
Siddiqui says: "Only if there are no Class I heirs does it pass to Class II heirs, such as the father and siblings, and after them to more distant relatives. Daughters inherit equally with sons."
Madhya Pradesh High Court discussion
Honourable Justice Ashish Shroti of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that in view of the admitted facts that the sale deed through which the 5 bigha 18 biswa land was purchased on August 20, 1998 in Kailash’s name, there was a presumption in favour of him that the property belonged to him. So it was the burden of the defendants (Vinod and Deendayal) to prove that the joint family and joint family fund was used to win this case.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said: “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 (Vinod and Deendayal).”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that except showing that there was 6-7 bighas of land with the father, Vinod and Deendayal could not show the existence of family funds, out of which, the said 5 bigha 18 biswa land was purchased.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said: “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 (Kailash).”
On the other hand, Kailash has pleaded and proved that he was working and out of the earnings from his employment and also by borrowing a certain amount, he purchased the land.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that both the lower courts have recorded concurrent findings with regard to non-existence of the family fund.
Consequently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the lower court’s order giving the full title to Kailash since Vinod and Deendayal could not prove the joint family fund angle.