the relationship to the common ancestor,
the existence of the coparcenary, and
whether any prior partition took place.
What happened in some recent Court cases?
There was a case in the Supreme Court of India recently where the primary contention of a brother was whether the lands were joint family property or exclusive acquisitions made by the respective family members of the HUF. One brother argued that the head of their HUF family used their ancestral lands to generate income by way of agriculture and this money was used to acquire the other lands.The other brother argued that the key ancestral lands which were claimed to generate income were perpetually waterlogged and incapable of yielding income. This brother who made this argument, placed reliance on independent earnings of their HUF family head (their father) and their father’s Will which was executed 72 hours prior to his death. However, this Will was scribed by a close relative instead of a professional scribe.Before the case reached the Supreme Court, it was heard by the Madras High Court where an observation was made that Hindu law does not require other coparceners to establish with precision the exact source of funds for each acquisition made by the Karta. Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of the joint family, and where ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved.The Supreme Court after hearing the case upheld one brother’s 5/16th share and allowed the other brother to retain select self-acquired lands.Thus this decision has highlighted that claiming ownership of ancestral land or property requires proof, not just an assumption. Under the Hindu Succession Act , 1956, coparcenary rights arise by birth, but doesn’t automatically Come into play.Amit Kumar Nag, Partner, AQUILAW, said to ET Wealth Online that to assert a birthright (coparcenary) to a property or land, one must clarify the following three issues:Nag says that the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Sections 104–106) places the burden squarely on the person asserting the title. Further, the Transfer of Property Act recognises ownership only when it flows from a legally cognizable transfer or inheritance.According to Nag, the Supreme Court in the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) case held that while coparcenary rights are statutory, courts must demand clear proof before disturbing inheritance positions or accepting pleas of prior partition.In H. Vasanthi v. A. Santha (2023) case, the Supreme Court reiterated that relationship alone does not entitle a party to a declaration. The basis of exclusive ownership must be demonstrated.Thus calling property or land ‘ancestral’ is not enough evidence.Nag says: “Courts expect a traceable pathway from ancestor to successor, supported by revenue records, prior dealings, conduct, and possession patterns. Where this chain is absent, claims collapse exactly what occurred in few of the recent High Court rulings.”Nag says that in the case of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. -vs- Suresh Chand & Anr. 2025 SCC Online SC 1879, the plaintiff claimed there is only an agreement to sell, and there is no sale deed executed in his favour by the father.According to Nag, the Supreme Court observed that as per the settled position of law, the agreement for sale does not confer a valid title on the plaintiff as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. At best, it only allows the plaintiff to seek specific performance for the execution of a sale deed and does not create an interest or charge on the suit property.Nag mentions that the Supreme Court had also observed that any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act).Similarly, in matters like the Badri Bhagat Jhandewalan Temple Society v. (defendant) — CS(OS) 381/2016 — and Nathu Ram v. DDA (RSA 64 of 2020) cases, the court has consistently refused relief where parties failed to produce a documentary foundation of ownership.Nag says: “Possession alone, the court warned, cannot magically transform into proof of ancestral character or legal title.”