Introduction:

The Bombay High Court, in Arti Varun Kejriwal v. Vandana Vinay Awatramani [Interim Application No. 989 of 2026 in Suit No. 17 of 2026; 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 306], has reiterated an important principle of Hindu property law by holding that the mere execution of a family arrangement cannot, by itself, establish that the properties covered by such an arrangement are assets of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed that a family arrangement may settle disputes among family members, but it cannot be treated as proof of the existence of an HUF unless there is foundational evidence demonstrating the existence of a joint family and an ancestral nucleus from which the properties were acquired.

The dispute arose from a partition suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declarations that several immovable properties formed part of the “Jotumal and Sons HUF.” They sought partition of the alleged HUF properties, cancellation of certain gift deeds and transfer documents, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit properties during the pendency of the litigation.

The plaintiffs claimed that the properties had been acquired from ancestral funds generated through family businesses. In support of their claim, they relied primarily on a Deed of Dissolution executed in 1956 and a Family Arrangement dated 15 February 2010, contending that these documents reflected the parties’ own understanding that the properties belonged to the HUF.

The defendants disputed these assertions and maintained that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the essential legal requirements necessary to treat the properties as HUF assets. The matter came before the High Court while considering the plaintiffs’ application for interim relief.

Arguments of the Parties:

The plaintiffs argued that the suit properties originated from an ancestral nucleus created through long-standing family businesses. According to them, the income earned from these businesses was utilised to acquire the properties, giving them the character of HUF assets. They further relied upon the 1956 Deed of Dissolution and the Family Arrangement executed in 2010, submitting that these documents demonstrated that the parties themselves had consistently treated the properties as belonging to the HUF.

On this basis, the plaintiffs sought interim protection against any transfer, alienation or encumbrance of the suit properties until the partition suit was finally decided. They also challenged certain gift deeds and transfer documents, alleging that they had been executed through fraud, coercion and undue influence.

The defendants opposed the application, contending that the plaintiffs had produced no reliable evidence showing the existence of an HUF or an ancestral nucleus from which the disputed properties had been acquired. They argued that a family arrangement is merely a settlement between family members and cannot independently establish the legal character of the properties involved. The defendants further submitted that the allegations of fraud and coercion were vague and unsupported by any prima facie evidence.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the interim application, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of an injunction.

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that there is no presumption that every Hindu family owns joint family property or that every property standing in the name of a family member automatically becomes HUF property. The burden lies upon the person asserting such a claim to first establish the existence of a joint family nucleus and demonstrate a clear connection between that nucleus and the acquisition of the disputed properties.

The Court observed that merely stating that the family conducted several businesses or earned income from them does not satisfy this legal requirement. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence showing that the properties were purchased from joint family funds, such assertions remain insufficient.

Rejecting the plaintiffs’ principal contention, the Court held that the Family Arrangement dated 15 February 2010 could not, by itself, determine the juridical character of the properties. It observed that family arrangements are often executed to resolve disputes and preserve harmony among family members. Their existence alone cannot be elevated into proof that an HUF exists or that the properties involved are HUF properties.

The Court further found that the allegations of fraud, coercion and undue influence concerning the gift deeds had not been substantiated by any credible material. Since the plaintiffs failed to establish either a prima facie right or a strong case warranting interim protection, the Court declined to restrain the defendants from dealing with the properties during the pendency of the suit.

Accordingly, the interim application seeking injunctions against the defendants was dismissed. The ruling reinforces the principle that a claim of HUF ownership must be supported by substantive evidence and that a family arrangement, standing alone, is insufficient to prove the existence of an HUF or the HUF character of the properties in dispute.