The Supreme Court recently ruled that if a Karta buys properties while the joint family is still together, and there are ancestral properties generating income, those properties bought in the name of the Karta are typically considered joint family properties unless proven otherwise.But, sometimes it’s not so straight forward, especially if the Karta used some of the family income to help fund the self-acquired properties and partly funded it from his own sources, maybe in a 50:50 split.Vishal Gehrana, Advocate on Record, associated with Karanjawala & Co, said to ET Wealth Online that if a Karta claims part of the property was bought with personal funds, he needs to provide solid proof-such as bank statements, salary slips, or business records-showing exactly how much came from his own money.Gehrana says: “A mere assertion that he had personal earnings is not enough to break the presumption in favour of joint family property . He who asserts must prove and the burden lies squarely on the person claiming self-acquisition.”According to Gehrana, if the personal contribution cannot be clearly separated or proven, the entire property is treated as joint family property.Gehrana says: “In some rare cases, if a Karta can show a definite portion came from his own funds, the courts may give him credit for that share while the rest remains joint. However, in many families, particularly those with agricultural or mixed incomes, funds are usually intermingled, making such apportionment exceedingly difficult.”You cannot unscramble an egg and similarly, once joint and personal funds are mixed without contemporaneous record, the law will not strain to separate what the parties themselves did not keep apart.Gehrana says that the Supreme Court has made it clear that under Hindu law, coparceners aren’t reruired to trace the exact source of funds for each acquisition.That protects family members but it also implies that a Karta cannot escape the presumption of joint property making vague claims about personal contributions.Gehrana says: “Hindu law does not require other coparceners to establish with precision the exact source of funds for each acquisition made by the Karta.”According to Gehrana, this is the practical wisdom of Hindu jurisprudence, and it places the burden on the person who claims to have acted individually, while shielding the family from those who would appropriate common property under the guise of personal industry.