The mere fact that the properties were not separately entered by the coparcener in the book of account or that he did not maintain a separate account of earnings from these properties would not deprive the properties of their character of self acquired properties. AIR 1976 SC 1715.

Where ancestral property which is sold in execution of decree against the karta is subsequently acquired by a coparcener with the aid of his own funds, the property would be treated as the self acquired property of the co-parcener. Revappa case AIR 1960 Mys 97.

The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property is on person who on first instance claims it as so. AIR 1960 SC 335. Only after the possession of adequate nucleus is shown, the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self acquired, affirmatively to make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the joint family estate. AIR 1969 SC 1076. One of the tests in determination of the adequacy of the nucleus is the income which yields. AIR 1984 SC 1171.

Where the manager of HUF claims that what is acquired is his separate property he should prove that he acquired it with his separate funds. AIR 1961 SC 1268, AIR 1969 SC 1076. Where there is an acquisition by the manager in his own name and there is no independent source of income, the presumption arises that the new acquisition was joint family property. AIR 1954 SC 379, AIR 1959 SC 906.

If the admissions are made by a member, then the onus shifts on him to prove that what he admitted is not true. AIR 1961 SC 1268.

The principle of Mitakshara Law that sons have independent co-parcenary rights in the ancestral estate and that father is subject to their control in he alienation of family property has been almost destroyed by the principle which has been established by the decisions that sons cannot setup their rights against their fathers alienation for an antecedent debt or against his creditors remedies for their debts, if not tainted with immorality, though not incurred for the family necessity or benefit. AIR 1952 SC 170. The concurrence of all the adult members is conclusive presumption of law. AIR 1951 Mys 38.FB.

The settled law through decisions of Privy council and various High courts is that “ A sale or mortgage of family property by the managing member is valid on the ground of justifying family necessity where it is: (a) For the payment of decree debts and other debts binding on the family. (b) To pay off the claims of Govt on account of Land Revenue, cesses, taxes and other dues. (c) For the payment of rents due to the landlord or the payment of decrees for arrears of rent obtained by land lord against family. (d) For the maintenance of members of the family. (e) For the purpose of defraying the expenses of the first marriage of the co-parcener and of daughters born in the family. (f) For the expenses of the necessary family ceremonies including funeral and annual shradha. (g) For the expenses of necessary litigation in connection with the recovery or protection of the joint estate or the establishment of adoption of his minor son. (h) For the expenses of defending the head of the family or any member against a serious criminal charge. (i) For the purpose of carrying on an ancestral trade or business. (j) To raise money to avert a sale or destruction of the whole or any part of the family property. (k) For the expenses of necessary repairs to the family residential house or family properties and for the protection of fields and lands belonging to the family from floods etc.,

Managers discretion regarding legal necessity or benefit of the estate can be subjected to judicial review. AIR 1964 SC 1385.

It is not open for a coparcener to sue for injunction restraining the manager from alienating on the ground that it is not for legal necessity or benefit. B.C.Ray, Justice however observed that injunction may be granted in case of waste or ouster. Sunil kumar case: AIR 1988 SC 576.

Gift by a manager even of a small extent of Joint family property to a relative out of love and affection is void as it is not a gift for pious purposes ( i.e religious and charitable purposes ) within the meaning of that expression in Hindu Law. Guramma v/s Mallappa AIR 1964 SC 510. see also AIR 1967 SC 569. A gift to a concubine or stranger is void. AIR 1980 SC 253.

In Krishnamurthy v/s Abdul khadar case AIR 1956 Mys 14 Where the property is acquired by the managing member and all the members of the family are in possession of the family property, it could very well be presumed that the new acquisition is family property.

Hindu Law:- Husband, wife and children living together constitute joint family. Property acquired by members of such joint family is presumed to be joint family property or coparcenary property not withstanding fact that it was acquired without the aid of ancestral nucleus, unless contrary is proved. Parties by their conduct and treatment of property in their hands, can impress self acquired property with character of joint family property with character of joint family property. Krishnamurthy case before KHC reported in 2005(3) KarLJ 420.