Bombay High Court Refuses to Restrain Dealings in Family Properties Where Plaintiffs Failed to Establish Existence of HUF or Ancestral Nucleus
Facts
The plaintiffs, members of the Awatramani family, instituted a suit seeking declarations and partition in respect of several valuable properties and business interests.
Their case was that certain properties described as the Schedule 1 Assets belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family originating from the common ancestor, late Jotumal Awatramani, known as “Jotumal and Sons HUF”. These assets included interests in West End Hotel, Hotel Kemps Corner, rooms in Abhay Chambers, the Akash Ganga residential flat, shares in Awatramani Investments Private Limited and commercial premises at Mahim.
The plaintiffs separately claimed that the Schedule 2 Assets, comprising late Veena Awatramani’s share in the sale proceeds of Amar Jivan Bungalow and her individual bank accounts, were her self-acquired properties.
They sought:
- partition and separate possession of the alleged HUF properties;
- cancellation of gift deeds, transfer deeds and other instruments;
- declarations that documents executed by late Veena were obtained through fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence; and
- alternatively, administration of late Veena’s estate under her alleged Will dated 4 June 2024.
The immediate application before the Court sought interim protection restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the suit properties.
The application was prompted principally by the transfer of the Akash Ganga Flat. During the proceedings, the plaintiffs learned that third-party rights had already been created in the flat. The purchasers were thereafter impleaded as Defendant Nos. 8 and 9.
The defendants raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit. The Bombay High Court declined to decide maintainability at the interim stage and confined the order to whether temporary protection should be granted.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiffs had prima facie established the existence of “Jotumal and Sons HUF”.
- Whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated the existence of an ancestral nucleus capable of funding the acquisition of the Schedule 1 Assets.
- Whether properties standing in the individual names of family members could prima facie be treated as HUF properties.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ simultaneous reliance on HUF ownership and late Veena’s Will amounted to mutually destructive pleas.
- Whether all branches of the alleged HUF were necessary parties to a suit seeking declaration and partition of HUF properties.
- Whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie basis to challenge the 2017 Gift Deed concerning the Akash Ganga Flat and its subsequent transfer to third-party purchasers.
- Whether the requirements for grant of interim injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury—were satisfied.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiffs contended that late Jotumal Awatramani and his sons lived jointly and carried on several family businesses, including timber, saw mills, hotels and investments.
They relied principally on a Deed of Dissolution dated 28 April 1956 relating to the business of “Jotumal Sons”. According to them, this document established the existence of a structured and income-generating family business that constituted an ancestral nucleus.
They argued that once the existence of an HUF and a sufficient ancestral nucleus was established, a rebuttable presumption arose that properties subsequently acquired by family members were joint family properties.
The plaintiffs also relied upon an alleged Family Arrangement dated 15 February 2010. They submitted that the defendants’ reliance upon a document under which Plaintiff No. 1 allegedly relinquished rights amounted to an admission that the disputed properties were treated as HUF assets.
It was argued that only the branch of late Newandram Awatramani was concerned with the properties in dispute. Therefore, the remaining branches of the alleged Jotumal HUF were neither necessary nor proper parties.
The plaintiffs alternatively asserted rights under late Veena’s Will dated 4 June 2024. They contended that probate was not mandatory for a registered Will executed by a Hindu in view of the amended provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act.
Regarding the Akash Ganga Flat, the plaintiffs submitted that:
- there were no title documents showing its acquisition by late Shantibai from the previous owner;
- the consideration could have originated from income generated by the family hotel business;
- the Gift Deed dated 22 February 2017 in favour of late Vinay was procured through fraud and coercion;
- the later transfer to Defendant Nos. 8 and 9 was clandestine;
- the purchasers had prior knowledge of the dispute; and
- the flat was allegedly transferred at an undervalue.
They also contended that the Awatramani family’s partnership interest in Hotel Kemps Corner was acquired from income generated by West End Hotel and therefore constituted part of the joint family estate.
On this basis, the plaintiffs claimed that a strong prima facie case existed and that refusal of interim protection would result in irreparable prejudice.
Respondent’s Arguments
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 argued that the plaintiffs had produced no documentary evidence establishing either the existence of the alleged HUF or the character of any Schedule 1 Asset as joint family property.
They contended that the burden rested entirely upon the plaintiffs to prove:
- the existence of the HUF;
- the existence of an ancestral nucleus;
- the financial capacity of that nucleus; and
- a nexus between the ancestral fund and the acquisition of each disputed property.
The defendants submitted that the 1956 Deed of Dissolution merely recorded the dissolution of a commercial partnership. It did not establish the existence of an HUF or a continuing ancestral fund capable of financing acquisitions made decades later.
They pointed out that the Akash Ganga Flat was acquired around 1973 and Hotel Kemps Corner was constituted in 1978, long after the alleged family business had been dissolved.
The defendants also contended that all branches and co-sharers of the alleged Jotumal HUF were necessary parties to a suit seeking partition of HUF properties.
They argued that the plaintiffs’ reliance upon late Veena’s Will was inconsistent with their claim that the same assets belonged to an HUF. If the properties were HUF assets, Veena could not have exercised absolute testamentary control over them.
Regarding Hotel Kemps Corner, it was submitted that:
- the partnership was formed in 1978;
- the Awatramani family members held individual partnership shares;
- the plaintiffs were never partners;
- the HUF itself was never a partner; and
- no material showed that the partnership interests were acquired from HUF funds.
Regarding the Akash Ganga Flat, the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs had known about the 2017 Gift Deed since December 2021 but did not challenge it until August 2025, after both Veena and Vinay had died.
The third-party purchasers claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value. They submitted that a public notice had been issued before the purchase and that the plaintiffs had no established proprietary interest in the flat.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that there is no legal presumption that every Hindu family possesses joint family property.
Similarly, property standing in the name of a member of a Hindu family does not automatically acquire the character of HUF or coparcenary property.
The person asserting HUF ownership must first establish foundational facts, including:
- the existence of the HUF;
- the existence of joint family property or an ancestral nucleus;
- the sufficiency of that nucleus to fund the disputed acquisition; and
- a reasonable connection between the ancestral fund and the property claimed as HUF property.
Only after these foundational facts are established does the evidentiary burden shift to the person asserting that the property was self-acquired.
The Court held that a partnership and an HUF are legally distinct concepts. A deed showing that family members conducted business as partners does not, without additional evidence, establish that the business or its assets belonged to an HUF.
At the interim stage, assertions regarding family businesses and income must be supported by contemporaneous evidence such as:
- books of accounts;
- balance sheets;
- income-tax records;
- bank statements;
- acquisition documents;
- financial statements; or
- records tracing the source of consideration.
The grant of an interim injunction requires the applicant to establish:
- a credible prima facie legal right;
- balance of convenience in their favour; and
- likelihood of irreparable injury.
Where no prima facie right is established, the remaining considerations ordinarily do not arise.
Precedent Analysis
D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam
The Supreme Court held that there is no presumption that property standing in the name of an individual member is joint family property merely because the family is joint.
The person alleging HUF ownership must prove the existence of sufficient joint family property from which the disputed acquisition could have been made.
The Bombay High Court found that this decision, though relied upon by the plaintiffs, actually reinforced the burden they had failed to discharge.
Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar
The decision reaffirmed that the initial burden lies upon the person asserting that a property is HUF or ancestral property.
Only after proving a sufficient ancestral nucleus does the burden shift to the party claiming self-acquisition.
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs relied upon this decision to contend that other family branches were not required to be impleaded.
The Court held that the authority supported the opposite conclusion: persons whose rights would be directly affected by the adjudication are necessary parties.
If the alleged HUF originated from Jotumal Awatramani, every branch claiming through him would prima facie be affected by a determination concerning the existence and partition of the HUF estate.
M. Ramaswamy v. M.R. Vijayan
The Court accepted the defendants’ reliance upon this decision for the proposition that all co-sharers and necessary parties should be joined in a partition suit.
Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal
The decision was relied upon in relation to claims founded upon a disputed Will and the appropriate forum and procedure for adjudicating testamentary rights.
The Court found the authority relevant because the plaintiffs sought to rely upon late Veena’s Will while simultaneously challenging other instruments executed by her.
N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board
The defendants relied upon this decision in support of their objections to a belated challenge to a registered gift deed by persons other than the donor.
The Court found the decision relevant to the interlocutory assessment of the plaintiffs’ challenge to the 2017 Gift Deed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the plaintiffs’ entire case concerning the Schedule 1 Assets depended upon the unproven assertion that “Jotumal and Sons HUF” existed and possessed an ancestral nucleus.
The sole document relied upon was the 1956 Deed of Dissolution. At most, this document showed that certain persons had carried on a partnership business that was dissolved in 1956.
It did not establish:
- the legal existence of an HUF;
- continuation of a family fund after 1956;
- the financial capacity of such a fund; or
- use of that fund to acquire properties years later.
The Akash Ganga Flat was acquired around 1973, approximately 17 years after the dissolution. Hotel Kemps Corner was created in 1978. No evidence traced the purchase consideration for either asset to any ancestral fund.
The plaintiffs had not produced any accounts, tax records, financial statements, acquisition documents or contemporaneous evidence showing a flow of HUF funds into the Schedule 1 Assets.
The alleged Family Arrangement also did not constitute proof that the properties were HUF assets. Family members may settle disputes without the properties necessarily possessing the juridical character of HUF property.
The Court further found the plaintiffs’ case internally inconsistent.
On the one hand, the plaintiffs claimed that the Schedule 1 Assets were HUF properties. On the other hand, they asserted rights over the same properties under late Veena’s Will.
The two positions were fundamentally incompatible. If the properties belonged to the HUF, Veena ordinarily could not have exercised absolute testamentary power over them. If the plaintiffs claimed through her Will, the premise was that she had an individually disposable interest in those properties.
The plaintiffs also alleged that instruments executed by Veena during her lifetime were fraudulent while seeking to enforce another instrument allegedly executed by her. No prima facie material was produced to explain why one document should be accepted as genuine while the others should be rejected.
The Court also found that all branches of the alleged HUF were prima facie necessary parties. A declaration concerning the existence and properties of an HUF originating from the common ancestor could not be confined only to one branch.
Regarding the Akash Ganga Flat, the plaintiffs had known about the Gift Deed since at least December 2021 but initiated proceedings only in August 2025, after the deaths of both the donor and donee. The unexplained delay weakened both the credibility and urgency of their challenge.
The subsequent allegations of undervaluation, clandestine transfer and notice to purchasers could not substitute proof of the plaintiffs’ own title or proprietary interest.
The same deficiencies applied to the claims concerning Hotel Kemps Corner and West End Hotel. There was no prima facie evidence connecting the partnership interests or shares to any HUF fund.
The Court concluded that the interim application rested upon multiple unsupported assumptions rather than cogent evidence.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that “Jotumal and Sons HUF” existed or that the Schedule 1 Assets were acquired from an ancestral nucleus.
The 1956 Deed of Dissolution did not prove either the existence of an HUF or the continuation of a family fund capable of financing later acquisitions.
The plaintiffs’ claims based simultaneously on HUF ownership and late Veena’s Will were found to be mutually destructive. Their failure to implead all branches of the alleged HUF and their unexplained delay in challenging the 2017 Gift Deed further weakened the case.
Since no credible prima facie proprietary right was shown, the balance of convenience favoured the persons presently holding title, and no irreparable injury was established.
The interim application was dismissed without costs. The Court clarified that the defendants remained free to separately challenge the maintainability of the suit.
Case: Arti Varun Kejriwal and Others v. Vandana Vinay Awatramani and Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Case Number: Interim Application No. 989 of 2026 in Suit No. 17 of 2026
Judge: Justice Farhan P. Dubash
Date: 1 July 2026
Result: Interim application dismissed; injunction and protective reliefs refused. The issue of maintainability of the suit was left open.
