Arti Varun Kejriwal v. Vandana Vinay Awatramani, 2026

The plaintiffs instituted a Partition Suit seeking a declaration that certain properties formed part of the "Jotumal and Sons HUF".

They sought partition of the properties and consequential reliefs, including cancellation of certain Gift Deeds and Transfer Documents.

The plaintiffs also filed an Interim Application seeking an Injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit properties.

The plaintiffs contended that the properties were acquired from an Ancestral Nucleus and therefore possessed the character of HUF Properties.

They relied upon a Deed of Dissolution (1956) and a Family Arrangement dated 15 February 2010, arguing that the defendants themselves had treated the properties as HUF Properties.

The defendants disputed the claim and argued that there was no evidence establishing the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or any Joint Family Nucleus from which the properties had been acquired.

The plaintiffs also alleged Fraud, Coercion, and Undue Influence in relation to certain Gift Deeds, seeking their cancellation.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Interim Application seeking an Interim Injunction.

The Court held that the mere execution of a Family Arrangement does not by itself establish that the properties are HUF Properties.

It observed that a Family Arrangement cannot be treated as proof of the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in the absence of foundational evidence.

The Court reiterated that there is no legal presumption that every Hindu family owns Joint Family Property or HUF Property.

The Court held that the Burden of Proof lies upon the party asserting that the property is HUF Property.

It observed that the claimant must first establish the existence of an Ancestral Nucleus of sufficient strength and demonstrate a reasonable nexus between such nucleus and the acquisition of the disputed properties.

The Court held that merely alleging that the family carried on several businesses and generated income was insufficient without contemporaneous documentary evidence linking the acquisitions to Joint Family Funds.

The Court rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on the Family Arrangement dated 15 February 2010, observing that settlement among family members cannot determine the juridical character of the properties.

The Court also found that the allegations of Fraud, Coercion, and Undue Influence against the Gift Deeds were unsupported by evidence.

Consequently, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, or likelihood of Irreparable Injury, and therefore declined interim relief.

The judgment reaffirms the settled principle that the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is not presumed merely because parties belong to the same Hindu family.

It emphasizes that the Burden of Proof rests entirely upon the claimant asserting the existence of HUF Property.

The Court clarified the distinction between a Family Arrangement and proof of the juridical character of property, holding that one cannot substitute for the other.

The decision strengthens the principle that Ancestral Nucleus and Nexus must be established through credible evidence before a property can be impressed with the character of Joint Family Property.

The judgment discourages speculative litigation based solely on Family Arrangements without supporting documentary evidence.

It reiterates the settled principles governing the grant of Interim Injunctions, namely the existence of a Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, and Irreparable Injury.

The ruling will serve as an important precedent in disputes concerning Partition, HUF Property, Family Settlements, and Coparcenary Rights.