DORAIRAJversusDORAISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

                  [2026] 2 S.C.R. 545 : 2026 INSC 126

                            Dorairaj
                               v.
               Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 2129-2130 of 2012)
                               05 February 2026
           [Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court exercised its power with restraint and
       precision by granting limited relief to the Appellant (D2) and whether
       it was justified in affirming the judgment and decree of the First
       Appellate Court entitling plaintiff to 5/16th share.

                                   Headnotes†
       Suit – Partition – The suit for partition being O.S. No. 99 of
       1987 was instituted by plaintiff-Dy, seeking partition and
       possession of his one-fourth share in the suit schedule
       properties – The case was founded on the premise that the
       suit properties constituted joint Hindu family properties – A
       substantial portion of the factual controversy also relates to
       a series of registered sale deeds executed by D1-S (father of
       Dy and Dj) in favour of D2-Dj – During the pendency of the
       suit, S died – Shortly thereafter, reliance was placed by certain
       defendants on an unregistered Will dated 24.11.1989, said to
       have been executed three days prior to his death – Plaintiff
       disputed the genuineness and validity of the Will – Trial
       Court declared that the Plaintiff was entitled to 1/4th share
       in the suit properties – The First Appellate Court modified
       the preliminary decree and declared the Plaintiff entitled to a
       5/16th share in the suit schedule properties – The High Court
       vide judgment dated 12.08.2009, the High Court partly allowed
       the appeals and held that the plaintiff was entitled to 5/16th
       share, excluding Item No. 74, Item No. 66 and 4 cents out of
       12 cents in Item No. 36 – Correctness:
       Held: The genealogy traced to one P and his three sons was not
       in dispute, nor was the fact that D1-S and his three sons namely,
       Plaintiff-Dy, D2-Dj, and the deceased R, constituted a coparcenary

* Author
546                                                                 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       at the relevant time – The High Court observed 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 –
       Significantly, the High Court also examined the factual position
       of the Appellant (D2) during the relevant period – On the basis
       of material on record, it noted that he was pursuing his studies
       till about 1966 and that his claim of having amassed substantial
       savings sufficient to purchase properties while still a student was
       subjected to careful scrutiny – The High Court’s reasoning on this
       aspect is neither conjectural nor speculative; it is rooted in a realistic
       appraisal of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances – The
       High Court correctly emphasized that all relevant conveyances
       described the interests conveyed as undivided shares, that there
       was no mutation evidencing division, and that there was no separate
       payment towards borrowings – In the absence of any declaration or
       conduct evidencing an intention to divide, the inference of continued
       joint family status was inevitable – The High Court then addressed
       with notable clarity; the validity of alienations effected by D1-S in
       favour of the Appellant (D2) as per various sale deeds Ex(s). B-17
       to B-19 – It correctly distinguished between alienations for proved
       legal necessity and those which were legally impermissible – The
       High Court affirmed this calibrated approach, reiterating that
       alienations by a Karta in favour of one coparcener must be proved
       to be for legal necessity and that vague or general recitals are
       insufficient to bind the interests of other coparceners – Likewise,
       on the issue of the Will dated 24.11.1989 (Ex. B-200), the High
       Court’s reasoning is both legally and factually compelling – It noted
       that the testator was habitually signing documents but affixed only
       a thumb impression as far as this document is concerned; that
       the Will was allegedly executed barely 72 hours prior to death;
       that it was scribed by a close relative instead of a professional
       scribe; and that the scribe’s presence itself was doubtful due to
       election duty – These circumstances clearly warranted a finding
       of suspicion – The High Court further dealt with the impleadment
       applications filed by alleged heirs of R – Approach reflects a proper
       balance between substantive justice and procedural discipline – The
       impugned judgement is reasoned and borne out from the material
       on record. [Paras 28, 31, 33, 36, 38]
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            547

            Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.


                              Case Law Cited
     Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors.
     [1955] 1 SCR 1 : (1954) 1 SCC 544 – referred to.
     Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal and Others, MLJ (II) 1976
     225 – referred to.

                             List of Keywords
     Karta; Coparcenary; Self-acquired property; Burden of proof;
     Clear and cogent evidence; Will; Unregistered Will; Partition;
     Properties; Substantive justice; Procedural discipline; Sale deed;
     Legal necessity; Legally impermissible; Hindu law; Income-bearing
     joint family nucleus; Genealogy; Source of funds; Acquisition; Joint
     family; Ancestral properties.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
     2129-2130 of 2012
     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2009 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras in SA Nos. 1561 and 1562 of 1995

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     V. Giri, V. Raghavachari, Anant Palli, Sr. Advs., G. Balaji, Mukesh
     Kumar Singh, Rajeev M. Roy, Anand Selvam, P. Srinivasan, Dr.
     D. Jayaprakash, Atchaya Gopal, Ms. R. Shase, V. Puneedhan,
     Ms. D. Naveena.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv., Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms.
     Deepti Rathi, P. V. Yogeswaran, Balaji Srinivasan, Vishwaditya
     Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Singh, D Mohan, S Raju, Harish Tripathi,
     Subhornadeep Bhattacharjee, K. Shiva, Rohan Dewan, Ms. Aakriti
     Priya, Rajesh R. Pandian, D.V.S. Santil, Hitesh Kumar Sharma,
     Akhileshwar Jha, Anupam Kumar, Jogendra Kumar, Dr. Mrs. Vipin
     Gupta, Rajeev Singh, Samant Singh, Ms. Anu H Kirutthika, Rajeev
     Singh, Gaurav Dhingra, Shashank Singh, A.K. Singh, Mahendra
     Ram, Raghvendra Shukla, Piyush Kant Roy, Ravishankar Ra,
     G Ilamurugu, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Amrendra Kumar Singh, Anand
     Mishra.
548                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

       FACTUAL MATRIX
1.     The present Civil Appeals arise out of a long-drawn family dispute
       concerning partition, and alienation of agricultural properties situated
       primarily in and around Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The
       dispute pertain to 79 items of immovable properties, all of which are
       set out with survey numbers, extents, and boundaries in the plaint
       schedule consisting mainly of agricultural lands. At each stage of
       adjudication, the concerns have primarily pertained to the nature and
       character of the suit properties; the extent to which certain alienations
       are binding on the coparcenary; and the legal effect of an alleged
       testamentary disposition purported to have been executed shortly
       before the demise of the family patriarch. The litigation has resulted
       in concurrent findings of fact, subject to limited and item-specific
       modifications at the appellate stages.
2.     The genealogy of the parties is admitted and forms the foundational
       backdrop of the lis. One Pallikoodathan was the common ancestor.
       He had three sons, namely Chidambaram, Sengan, and Natesan.
       •    Chidambaram predeceased the institution of the suit. Upon
            his death, his minor children pursuant to the orders passed by
            the competent court were represented through their natural
            guardian, Sengan, and subsequently through other legal
            representatives as brought on record.
       •    Natesan’s branch is represented through his legal heirs.
       •    Sengan, the central figure in the dispute, was the father of the
            Plaintiff Duraisamy and the second Defendant Dorairaj.
       During his lifetime, Sengan resided with his sons and managed the
       agricultural affairs of the family. Several suit properties stood in his
       name, while others were acquired in the names of his sons or through
       transactions involving the heirs of his deceased brother Chidambaram.
       Sengan died during the pendency of the suit on 27.11.1989.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           549

            Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.


3.   The suit for partition being O.S. No. 99 of 1987 was instituted by
     Duraisamy, seeking partition and possession of his one-fourth share
     in the suit schedule properties. The case was founded on the premise
     that the suit properties constituted joint Hindu family properties, either
     by reason of being ancestral in origin or by reason of having been
     acquired from the income derived from ancestral properties during
     the subsistence of the joint family. It was pleaded that the family
     remained joint in residence, cultivation, enjoyment, and management,
     and that there had never been any partition, either oral or written. As
     per the plaint, Sengan, being the senior-most male member, acted as
     the Karta of the Hindu joint family, and properties purchased in his
     name or in the names of other family members were, in substance,
     acquisitions made for and on behalf of the family.
4.   Primary contention was that the said acquisitions were made at a time
     when the family lived and functioned jointly, pooling its resources,
     and that Appellant (D2) herein did not possess independent income
     at the relevant point of time, particularly during the late 1960s and
     early 1970s to justify exclusive ownership of the properties standing
     in his name. However, the Appellant (D2) provided that substantial
     number of suit items were the self-acquisitions of Sengan, purchased
     from his own income generated through diverse sources including
     agricultural affairs, money-lending, panchayat-related works, and
     other sources. Further, it was pleaded that several properties were
     purchased by Dorairaj himself from his independent income earned
     as a contractor and businessman, particularly after the mid-1960s.
5.   A central factual assertion in the plaint related to Item No(s). 14 and
     15 of the suit schedule properties, described as ancestral agricultural
     lands situated in Thoramangalam Village. These lands were stated to
     have devolved from Pallikoodathan and were pleaded to constitute
     the principal source of income for the family. Reliance was placed
     upon revenue records, including Adangal extracts for Fasli years
     1390 to 1395 (1980-1985), to demonstrate continuous cultivation. It
     was specifically pleaded that these lands were supported by wells
     and oil motor pumps, and that agricultural operations over several
     years yielded income sufficient to sustain the family and facilitate
     acquisition of other properties.
6.   A substantial portion of the factual controversy also relates to a series
     of registered sale deeds executed by Sengan in favour of Dorairaj,
550                                                             [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       covering multiple suit items. These alienations were effected under
       various sale deeds dated 16.12.1968, 05.07.1985, 01.08.1986, and
       08.05.1987 pertaining to suit items including Item No(s). 1 to 7, 9, 10,
       13, 16, 18, 19, 20 to 25, 31, 33 to 41, 52, 54 to 60, and 63. These
       documents referred to discharge of debts, medical expenses, and
       other family needs. Dorairaj claimed that these alienations were valid
       and binding, having been effected for lawful necessity, and asserted
       that possession and revenue entries stood mutated in his favour
       pursuant thereto. Plaintiff, however, disputed the necessity and binding
       nature of these transactions, contending that the consideration was
       either illusory or sourced from joint family funds, and that alienations
       in favour of one coparcener could not bind the others in absence
       of genuine necessity.
7.     Another set of transactions involved alienations made by Sengan in
       his capacity as guardian of the minor children of his deceased brother
       Chidambaram, pursuant to permissions obtained in guardianship
       proceedings. Certain suit items, including Item No(s). 15, 27 to 30,
       32, 44, 67, and 69, were sold in this manner. While Dorairaj/Appellant
       herein contended that these alienations were valid and binding,
       having been effected in accordance with court orders, the Plaintiff
       pleaded that such transactions did not divest the properties of their
       joint family character and could not result in exclusive ownership in
       favour of the Appellant herein.
8.     During the pendency of the suit, Sengan died on 27.11.1989.
       Shortly thereafter, reliance was placed by certain defendants on
       an unregistered Will dated 24.11.1989, said to have been executed
       three days prior to his death, purporting to bequeath the entirety of
       his properties in favour of certain grandchildren. Plaintiff disputed the
       genuineness and validity of the Will, alleging suspicious circumstances
       relating to the age and health of the testator, the manner of execution,
       the use of thumb impression, and the exclusion of natural heirs.
9.     The Trial Court framed issues relating to the nature and character of
       the suit properties; the existence of joint family properties; the validity
       of the alienations; the effect of the alleged Will; and the entitlement
       of the parties to partition and consequential reliefs. Vide, judgement
       dated 22.04.1992 in O.S. No. 99 of 1987, the Trial Court declared that
       the Plaintiff was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties excluding
       Item No(s). 15, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 44, 67, 69, 26, 31, 1 to 7, 9 to 13,
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         551

            Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.


     18, 19, 20, 21 to 25, 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, 52, 55, 57, 60, and 63; and
     certain other properties sold under documents not forming part of
     the plaint schedule. The suit was decreed accordingly, without costs.
10. Aggrieved, by the judgement of the Trial Court, the Plaintiff preferred
    A.S. No. 160 of 1994, while Defendant(s) 3 to 7 preferred A.S. No.
    161 of 1994, before the 1st Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
    Vide judgement dated 26.09.1995, the First Appellate Court modified
    the preliminary decree and declared the Plaintiff entitled to a 5/16th
    share in the suit schedule properties.
11. Second Appeals bearing S.A. No(s). 1561 and 1562 of 1995 were
    thereafter preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
    Vide judgment dated 12.08.2009, the High Court partly allowed
    the appeals and held that the Plaintiff was entitled to 5/16th share,
    excluding:
     •     Item No. 74, which had been purchased by Dorairaj from
           Mookayee, who was not a coparcener;
     •     Item No. 66 and 4 cents out of 12 cents in Item No. 36, covered
           by Exhibit B75, as these did not form part of the coparcenary.
     It is against this backdrop of concurrent and modified findings that
     the present Civil Appeals have been filed.

     SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
12. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant (D2) at the outset submits
    that the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit properties
    constitute joint Hindu family properties in entirety. It is contended
    that the Plaintiff failed to provide facts necessary to establish the
    existence of any income-yielding joint family property capable of
    supporting subsequent acquisitions. As per the Appellant, the plaint
    was conspicuously silent on the manner in which the suit properties
    are alleged to have been acquired from any common family source.
13. It is contended that mere proof of ancestral origin of Item No(s). 14
    and 15 does not, by itself, justify the inference that all subsequent
    acquisitions are presumed to bear the character of joint family property.
    The Appellant maintains that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a
    clear nexus between the ancestral properties and the acquisitions
    standing in the name of individual family members.
552                                                       [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


14. It is submitted that the first Defendant, Sengan, had substantial and
    continuous independent sources of income over several decades.
    Reliance was placed on documentary and oral evidence to show
    that Sengan was engaged in government service, panchayat
    administration, money-lending, temple trusteeship, and later as a
    Sub-Jail contractor.
15. It is contended that the said independent earnings fully explain the
    acquisitions made in his name and negate the presumption that
    such properties were purchased from any common family fund. The
    Appellant submits that the courts below failed to properly appreciate
    this evidence while mechanically invoking presumptions relating to
    joint family property.
16. It is further submitted that appellant himself had independent sources
    of income and financial capacity to acquire properties in his own name
    from as early as 1963 and continuously thereafter till 19.04.1991. It
    is contended that there was no justification for the courts below to
    discard or disbelieve the purchases made by the Appellant during
    this period.
17. Learned counsel emphasises that a series of registered covenants
    evidencing purchases and subsequent transactions effected,
    including Ex(s). B-2, B-10, B-13 to B-19, B-67, B-73, B-75, B-76 and
    B-104 are to be considered. These documents, as per the Appellant,
    clearly demonstrate a consistent pattern of independent acquisition,
    enjoyment, and in certain cases alienation, wholly inconsistent with
    the understanding of joint family ownership.
18. Reliance is placed on Ex(s). B-121 to B-141, including Ex(s). B-125,
    B-126, B-127, B-128, B-129, B-131, B-132, B-133, B-134, B-135,
    B-137 and B-142, which consist of contract orders, completion
    certificates, income records, and allied documents to establish the
    income out of which such purchases are made. These, establish
    beyond doubt that the Appellant was engaged in gainful commercial
    and contractual activities and had sufficient independent income to
    fund the acquisitions.
19. Primary concern of the Appellant is that the courts below failed to
    undertake an objective evaluation of the aforesaid documents and
    unjustly discarded the same without assigning legally sustainable
    reasons. It is submitted that such an approach has resulted in serious
    prejudice to the Appellant.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         553

            Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.


20. It is further submitted that even assuming the existence of a joint
    family, the alienations effected by the first Defendant in his favour
    were legally valid and binding. It is contended that the first Defendant,
    being the admitted head of the family, was indebted and medically
    indisposed and that the sales effected under including Ex(s). B-17,
    B-18 and B-19 were necessitated by compelling circumstances,
    including medical expenses and discharge of certain debts.
    Reliance is placed on promissory notes, hospital records, and other
    contemporaneous documents to substantiate the plea of necessity.
    It is argued that alienations effected for lawful necessity cannot be
    questioned by other coparceners.
21. With regard to properties originally belonging to Chidambaram,
    it is submitted that the first Defendant was appointed guardian
    of Chidambaram’s minor children by order of the District Court,
    Tiruchirappalli. Pursuant to the permission obtained, sale deeds
    including dated 16.12.1968 (Ex. B-2) was executed in favour of
    the Appellant. It is contended that the sale proceeds were utilised
    to discharge Chidambaram’s debts and that the transactions were
    lawful, binding, and immune from challenge.
22. The Appellant also assails the rejection of the Will dated 24.11.1989
    (Ex. B-200), contending that it was duly executed and proved through
    the scribe and attesting witnesses. It is largely submitted that the
    courts below erred in treating the Will as suspicious and in failing
    to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.
23. Reliance is placed on admissions made by the Plaintiff during
    cross-examination, including admissions relating to independent
    transactions, payment of consideration under sale deeds and
    existence of debts explaining the joint family character of the suit
    properties. It is contended that these admissions disentitle the
    Plaintiff from asserting joint family ownership and operate as estoppel
    against him.
24. On the contrary, Respondent(s) submit that the existence of a joint
    Hindu family and the ancestral origin of Item No(s). 14 and 15 are
    admitted. It is contended that once ancestral properties yielding
    income were shown to exist and acquisitions were made during the
    subsistence of the joint family, the burden shifted to the Appellant
    to establish self-acquisition, which he failed to do.
554                                                          [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


25. It is further submitted that the Trial Court undertook a meticulous
    item-wise scrutiny of alienations, upheld those supported by necessity,
    and excluded others. The High Court, far from acting unfairly, granted
    relief to the Appellant by excluding Item No. 74, Item No. 66, and
    part of Item No. 36 from partition.
26. The Respondent(s) also submit that the rejection of the Will attained
    finality, having not been challenged at the appropriate stage. The
    Appellant cannot now seek to resurrect the issue in second appeal.

       ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. Having given anxious consideration to the record and contentions
    made by the parties; impugned judgment of the High Court reflects
    a correct appreciation of the pleadings, exhaustive analysis of the
    record and settled principles governing partition of joint Hindu family
    properties.
28. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the High Court correctly
    identified that the relationship between the principal parties was
    admitted, and that the suit was instituted by one coparcener against
    the others during the subsistence of the joint family. The genealogy
    traced to Pallikoodathan and his three sons was not in dispute, nor
    was the fact that Sengan (D1) and his three sons namely, Duraisamy
    (Plaintiff), Durairaj (D2), and the deceased Rajakannu, constituted
    a coparcenary at the relevant time. The High Court therefore
    approached the controversy on a settled factual foundation, without
    allowing any other dispute to cloud the core issues.
29. The principal contention by the Appellant before the High Court, and
    reiterated before us, is that the First Appellate Court erred in holding
    that the suit properties were joint family properties, particularly in the
    absence of what was described as an “income-bearing joint family
    nucleus”. The High Court primarily placing its reliance on MLJ (II)
    1976 225 (Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal and others); 1954 1
    SCC 544 Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and
    Ors. noted that proof of the mere existence of a joint family does not
    by itself render all properties as joint family properties, but equally,
    once it is established that ancestral properties yielding income
    existed and acquisitions were made during the continuance of the
    joint family, the burden shifts to the person asserting self-acquisition.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         555

            Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.


30. In this context, the High Court undertook a detailed examination of
    Item No(s). 14 and 15, which were admittedly ancestral properties.
    The plea of the Appellant that these lands were perpetually water-
    logged, and incapable of yielding income was carefully examined. On
    the contrary, reliance was placed on revenue records (Ex(s). B-201
    to B-206), which categorically evidenced cultivation over several
    fasli years and disclosed the existence of wells and oil-engine pump
    sets. The High Court further examined the Appellant’s reliance on
    the alleged independent income of Sengan (D1). It accepted that
    Sengan had engaged in various jobs over his lifetime, including
    service and contractual work. However, it correctly rejected the
    simplistic assumption that the mere existence of some independent
    earnings would automatically negate the contribution of joint family
    income. The High Court observed 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.
31. Significantly, the High Court also examined the factual position of the
    Appellant (D2) during the relevant period. On the basis of material
    on record, it noted that he was pursuing his studies till about 1966
    and that his claim of having amassed substantial savings sufficient
    to purchase properties while still a student was subjected to careful
    scrutiny. The High Court’s reasoning on this aspect is neither
    conjectural nor speculative; it is rooted in a realistic appraisal of the
    evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
32. On the plea of prior partition or division in status, the High Court
    recognised that separate enjoyment of portions, installation of
    irrigation facilities, or even obtaining borrowings individually, do not
    by themselves establish partition in law. What is required is a clear
    and unequivocal intention to sever the joint status. The High Court
    correctly emphasized that all relevant conveyances described the
    interests conveyed as undivided shares, that there was no mutation
    evidencing division, and that there was no separate payment towards
    borrowings. In the absence of any declaration or conduct evidencing
    an intention to divide, the inference of continued joint family status
    was inevitable.
556                                                       [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


33. The High Court then addressed with notable clarity; the validity of
    alienations effected by Sengan (D1) in favour of the Appellant (D2) as
    per various sale deeds Ex(s). B-17 to B-19. It correctly distinguished
    between alienations for proved legal necessity and those which were
    legally impermissible. The Courts below undertook an item-wise
    scrutiny of each transaction and upheld those alienations where
    legal necessity was established, while excluding others where such
    necessity was not proved. The High Court affirmed this calibrated
    approach, reiterating that alienations by a Karta in favour of one
    coparcener must be proved to be for legal necessity and that vague
    or general recitals are insufficient to bind the interests of other
    coparceners. However, it protected D2’s right to establish actual
    medical expenses during final decree proceedings.
34. Of particular significance is the High Court’s approach to Ex. B-2,
    qua properties sold by Sengan as guardian of the minor sons of
    Chidambaram. The High Court in paragraph 82 to 89 meticulously
    analysed the surrounding circumstances, the court permission
    obtained, the recitals in the sale deed, and the endorsements on
    the promissory note. It found glaring inconsistencies and rightly
    concluded that the Trial Court had upheld Ex. B-2 without adequate
    reasoning. The First Appellate Court’s correction of this error was
    therefore fully justified.
35. Likewise, on the issue of the Will dated 24.11.1989 (Ex. B-200), the
    High Court’s reasoning is both legally and factually compelling. It
    noted that the testator was habitually signing documents but affixed
    only a thumb impression as far as this document is concerned; that
    the Will was allegedly executed barely 72 hours prior to death; that
    it was scribed by a close relative instead of a professional scribe;
    and that the scribe’s presence itself was doubtful due to election
    duty. These circumstances clearly warranted a finding of suspicion.
    Importantly, the High Court also noted that the rejection of the Will
    by the Trial Court had not been challenged by D2 at the appropriate
    stage and had therefore attained finality. The Appellant cannot be
    permitted to approbate and reprobate at different stages of litigation.
36. The High Court further dealt with the impleadment applications filed
    by alleged heirs of Rajakannu. It correctly held that there was no
    evidence of collusion in the suit, that the share of Rajakannu was
    already represented, and that permitting impleadment at such a
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                      557

               Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.


     belated stage would unsettle proceedings that had otherwise attained
     finality. This approach reflects a proper balance between substantive
     justice and procedural discipline.
37. Finally, the High Court exercised its powers with restraint and
    precision by granting limited relief to the Appellant. Item No(s). 66
    and 74, as well as a portion of Item No. 36 were clearly shown to
    have been purchased from third parties, accordingly, were excluded
    from partition as they were the exclusive properties of D2. Save
    and except these limited modifications, the High Court affirmed the
    judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.

     CONCLUSION
38. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered view
    that the impugned judgement is reasoned and borne out from the
    material on record. Except to the limited extent expressly modified
    therein, this Court finds no ground to take a view different from that
    taken by the High Court.

39. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed. No order as to cost.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan