It is a settled law that there is a presumption that parties residing in a particular area governed by the lex loci unless migration is proved. The burden of proving that the family came from some other tract and is, therefore, governed by some other branch of Hindu Law is on the party which asserts it.
The ordinary presumption is that Hindu is governed by the law of the land where he resides. This presumption is, however, not based on the theory of lex loci but on the ground of its being a personal law.
In Bahuant Rao v. Baji Rao, the Privy Council said, “Where a Hindu family migrates from one part of India to another prima facie they carry with them their personal law, and, if they are alleged to have become subject to a new local custom, this new custom must be affirmatively proved to have been adopted.
The analogy is that of a change of domicile on settling in a new country rather than the analogy of a change of custom on migration within India.” Of course, if nothing is known about a man except that he lived in a certain place, it will be assumed that his personal law is the law which prevails in that place. In such a case domicile plays an important role.