Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Partition Method - Generally, partition can be by stripes or per capita, but the prevailing legal and customary approach depends on the specific family law context and evidence ["Muthukoya Thangal VS Sayed Muhammed Koya - 2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 727"], ["Kunhipappada Beefathummabi VS Kunhipappada Kunhikoya - Kerala"].
Per Stripes - Partition by stripes involves dividing property according to branches of the family (stock basis). For example, properties are divided into parts corresponding to different family branches or lineages, with each branch taking a share based on its stock ["A. Muraleedharan VS A. Venkitesh - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 339"], ["A.MURALEEDHARAN vs A.VENKITESH - Kerala"]. In some cases, courts have ordered division per stripes, especially when the property is considered ancestral and the division aligns with traditional customs or specific legal provisions ["LEKSHMI AMMA VS ANANDAN NAMBIYAR - Kerala"], ["NAWAL KISHORE MALHOTRA vs RAM SHARAN MEHRA & ORS - Delhi"].
Per Capita - Partition by capita involves dividing property equally among individuals within a class or generation. Many decisions indicate that when property is divided among heirs of the same degree, the division is typically per capita, with each person taking an equal share ["Muthukoya Thangal VS Sayed Muhammed Koya - 2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 727"], ["Vasumathi VS R. Vasudevan - Current Civil Cases"]. Courts have also recognized that in cases where the property is ancestral but has been partitioned, the division often proceeds on a per capita basis, especially under the Hindu Succession Act and related laws ["Madhavi VS Kumaran - Kerala"], ["Vasumathi VS R. Vasudevan - Madras"].
Legal and customary context - The mode of partition (per stripes or per capita) depends on the specific law governing the family, such as Marumakkathayam, Mitakshara, or statutory provisions like the Hindu Succession Act. Courts have clarified that when property is partitioned by metes and bounds or through registered deeds, the division is generally considered per capita, especially if the property has been explicitly divided among individuals or branches ["LEKSHMI AMMA VS ANANDAN NAMBIYAR - Kerala"], ["Ganisetti Sitaramayya VS Ambati Lakshmi Kumari - Current Civil Cases"].
Evidence and authority - Courts have relied on customary law, legislative provisions, and family agreements to determine the mode of partition. When evidence shows that a property was divided among family members or branches, courts tend to uphold per stripes if the division aligns with stock or branch-based sharing, but often favor per capita where the division is equal among individuals ["Muthukoya Thangal VS Sayed Muhammed Koya - 2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 727"], ["Madhavi VS Kumaran - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The partition of coparcenary or ancestral property can be either by stripes or per capita, depending on the legal context, family customs, and specific evidence. Courts tend to prefer division per capita when property is divided among individuals of the same class or generation, especially after formal partition deeds or statutory amendments. However, in cases involving traditional family customs or ancestral property, division by stripes (branch-wise) is also recognized. Ultimately, the mode of partition is determined by the nature of the property, the family law applicable, and the evidence of how the partition was carried out ["Muthukoya Thangal VS Sayed Muhammed Koya - 2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 727"], ["Kunhipappada Beefathummabi VS Kunhipappada Kunhikoya - Kerala"].
In the intricate world of Hindu joint family property, disputes over division often arise, especially when heirs question: how is a coparcenary property partitioned? Is it by per stirpes or per capita? These terms—Latin for by branch and by head respectively—determine whether shares are divided equally among individuals or by family branches. Understanding this is crucial for families navigating inheritance under Hindu law. This post breaks down the principles, statutory changes, and judicial insights, but note that this is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Coparcenary property refers to ancestral joint family property under Hindu law, primarily governed by the Mitakshara school. Coparceners—typically male descendants up to four generations—hold undivided interests by birth. Traditionally, property devolves by survivorship, but partition severs this unity, allotting specific shares. The mode of partition—per stirpes or per capita—hinges on custom, agreement, or default rules. Dharmabal VS S. Lakshmi Ammal - 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
Under classical Mitakshara law, absent proof of custom or agreement, partition occurs per stirpes. Property is divided equally among branches from a common ancestor, with members within each branch sharing equally. For instance, if a father has three sons, and one son predeceases leaving two children, the branches divide the property into three equal parts: the surviving sons each get 1/3, and the predeceased son's branch splits its 1/3 between the two grandchildren. Dharmabal VS S. Lakshmi Ammal - 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
Courts affirm: in the absence of specific proof of custom or agreement, the default mode of partition is per stirpes. Dharmabal VS S. Lakshmi Ammal - 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346 This preserves family lineage equity. In a Kerala High Court case under the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, the court held: as per the Hindu law it is per stirpes division that is possible... The joint property will therefore be divided per stirpes into three parts corresponding to the remaining three branches, each branch taking 1/3. A.MURALEEDHARAN vs A.VENKITESH - 2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9802
As one ruling notes: The per capita mode of division, where shares are equally divided among all members of the same class, is generally the default unless all interested parties agree otherwise. A. Muraleedharan VS A. Venkitesh - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 339 However, courts lean per stirpes without evidence otherwise. Dharmabal VS S. Lakshmi Ammal - 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, revolutionized coparcenary rights by granting daughters coparcenary status by birth, equal to sons. Rights accrue at birth, not survivorship or father's death. 01500066454
This shift promotes equality but doesn't override partition modes directly. Partition still considers the coparcenary at division time. Daughters now claim branches equally. Statutory changes emphasize: partition via court decree, registered instrument, or bona fide arrangement. SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD VS KRISHNA PRASAD - 2018 6 Supreme 476
In cases post-amendment, courts uphold birth rights: Recent statutory amendments... confer coparcenary rights on daughters by birth, making them coparceners with equal rights as sons. 01500066454
Courts examine evidence of custom, mutual agreement, or family conduct to decide the mode. Oral partitions may validate if backed by public documents. Dharmabal VS S. Lakshmi Ammal - 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
For example, in a succession dispute, the court queried: whether they have to take the property per stirpes or per capita? and ruled based on a settlement deed intending notional halves per son's male heirs—effectively per stirpes. S. Balakrishnan VS V. Gokilnath - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3840
Another case clarified: All the succeeding heirs succeed to their respective shares not as joint tenants but as tenants-in-common – The property devolves upon them not per stirpes but per capita... particularly when the property has been partitioned. S. Murugan VS K. Sadayan (Died) - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2619 Here, post-partition, per capita applied due to tenancy-in-common status.
Absent proof, per stirpes prevails: the mode of partition (per stirpes or per capita) can be determined by the evidence of custom, agreement, or conduct of the parties, but absent such proof, courts tend to favor per stirpes. Akavande Mulahur Vatakethil Kizhakke Nayar Veetil Karna Vastri Sreedevi Nethiar VS Akavande Mulahur Elayat Vatakke Nair Veetil Karnavan Peruvunni Nair - 1934 0 Supreme(Mad) 68
Partition disrupts joint tenancy. Methods include:- Court decree- Registered partition deed- Bona fide family arrangement
Physical partition is essential for undivided property before possession handover or sale. A coparcener can't alienate specific undivided shares without authority (e.g., legal necessity). Such transfers are void or voidable. Gajara Vishnu Gosavi VS Prakash Nanasahed Kamble - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1583M. K. Balakrishnan Menon VS Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty-cum-ingome Tax Officer, Ernakulam - 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 535
Judicially: actual physical partition is necessary before possession can be handed over to any co-sharer or vendee. Gajara Vishnu Gosavi VS Prakash Nanasahed Kamble - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1583 In a transfer dispute, the court ruled a co-owner lacks competence to transfer definite joint parts without partition: defendant No.1 had no competence to transfer the land... inasmuch as the land was never partitioned. Seema Chakraborty VS Mina Rani Chakraborty - 2016 Supreme(Tri) 108
Post-partition, shares become self-acquired, alienable freely. Once partitioned, property ceases joint family character. Padala Prasad VS Padala Anandarao - 2010 Supreme(AP) 487Mohinder Kaur VS Pargat Singh
Partitioning coparcenary property demands careful navigation of tradition, statute, and family dynamics. While per stirpes generally applies, consent enables flexibility toward per capita equality. Families should document agreements and seek partitions proactively to avoid disputes. This overview draws from established precedents, but laws evolve—always verify with current statutes and professional counsel.
References:- Dharmabal VS S. Lakshmi Ammal - 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346: Traditional per stirpes principles.- SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD VS KRISHNA PRASAD - 2018 6 Supreme 476: Amendments and partition modes.- 01500066454: Daughters' coparcenary rights.- Akavande Mulahur Vatakethil Kizhakke Nayar Veetil Karna Vastri Sreedevi Nethiar VS Akavande Mulahur Elayat Vatakke Nair Veetil Karnavan Peruvunni Nair - 1934 0 Supreme(Mad) 68: Custom and division modes.- A.MURALEEDHARAN vs A.VENKITESH - 2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9802: Kerala per stirpes affirmation.- Others as cited.
#CoparcenaryPartition, #HinduLaw, #PerStirpes
Partition can be by stripes but that is different from that the custom that was followed in the family was to divide by per stripes and not by per capita. ... There is no reliable evidence to show that partition should be per stripes. Even when partition is per stripes, there are authorities to show that the share is calculated on the basis of the number of persons in the tarwad.....
should be per stripes and not per capita.” ... It was contended that partition in the Kalpeni island is not per stripes, but it was per capita. ... He would event, be partitioned per stripes, but the property was to be divided per capita. He relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: ... “1) Nani Kutti and Other v. K.P.P.P. Achuthan Kutti Nair and Others v. ....
The joint property will therefore be divided per stripes into three parts corresponding to the remaining three 2branches, each branch taking 1/3. ... Thereafter the property has to be partitioned ignoring sub-s. (2) of S.4. If that be so, as per the Hindu law it is per stirpes division that is possible,” ... In that case, parties were governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Sankaranarayana lyer was the common ancestor. ... ‘Per....
Thereafter the property has to be partitioned ignoring sub-s. (2) of S. 4. If that be so, as per the Hindu law it is per stirpes division that is possible.” ... The joint property will therefore be divided per stripes into three parts corresponding to the remaining three branches, each branch taking 1/3. ... If it is per stripes, they take by branches of family, for example, gran....
28.3 The difference the Hindu Succession Act has brought to the above rule (per capita and per stripes) is on the point of its applicability. ... He says: It is common to say that in an undivided family each member transmits to his ‘issue his own share in the joint property, and that such issue takes per capita inter se, but per stripes as regards the issue of other members. ... And, inasmuch as Sec.19 does not define what it me....
28.3 The difference the Hindu Succession Act has brought to the above rule (per capita and per stripes) is on the point of its applicability. ... He says: It is common to say that in an undivided family each member transmits to his ‘issue his own share in the joint property, and that such issue takes per capita inter se, but per stripes as regards the issue of other members. ... And, inasmuch as Sec.19 does not define what it means....
The learned counsel for the defendant no.4 submits that though he has no interest in the land, which is being partitioned/bifurcated between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, in the land which is in his possession, the defendant no.5 has no interest, though it is so incorrectly mentioned in the Settlement ... red stripes in the site plan annexed with the Settlement Agreement as Annexure-II. ... For the time being and only as an interim arrangement Second Party is handing over to th....
should be per stripes. ... The mode of partition of the tavazhi property given by the ... father to his wife and children also known as Puthravakasom property is contained in the proviso to S.48 of the Act and the division can only be per stirpes." ... (In the Travancore area there is authority that the division is stirpital). It is a per capita division that is recognised under S.38 in Chapter VI....
s Contention is that the estate should be divided per stripes, and that therefore he is entitled to one-third. 4. Logically he should claim one-half because his connexion with the deceased must be traced throught the latter? ... The question arising in this appeal is: How is the estate of the deceased Maung Aung Myin to be partitioned among his heirs, who are: (1) the plaintiff, the son of Aung myin? ... The learned Judge on the original side has found that the estate....
The learned Munsiff upheld the contentions of the defendants and passed a decree as if the property is an item of tarwad property, allowing partition on percapita basis, the plaintiff getting 1/8. ... which enjoins a per stirpes division different from the per capita division in respect of tarwad property dealt with under Chapter VI of the Act." ... This is a puthravakasom or makkathayam gift in the normal or conventional sense and the devolution can....
All the succeeding heirs succeed to their respective shares not as joint tenants but as tenants-in-common – The property devolves upon them not per stripes but per capita with the right to alienate the share, particularly when the property has been partitioned and entries made in the revenue record of rights He died leaving behind his son S and three daughters.
Thus, the begging question before the Court raised by the parties is whether they have to take the property per stripes or per capita?. A-6 was effected and acted upon and after the demise of the life interestee Subbathal, on 20.11.2002, their right has open up, they differ on the proportion of share and they are entitled to.
In this matter no such process was followed and as such there was no partition. Daschaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the defendant No.1 had no competence to transfer the land measuring .10 acre out of the total allotted land as stated, inasmuch as the land was never partitioned. It is an invaluable right related to the property, inasmuch as how the joint property would be partitioned it is a matter of consensus or a legal process. In view of this, the transfer of the land, well delineated by the definite boundaries as described in the....
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Kanpur and others v. Hander Sen and others (4) (1986) 3 SCC 567, Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (5) AIR 1987 SC 558, Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar (6) 1993 Supp.(1) SCC 580 and Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and others (7) (2008) 3 SCC 87 and as a matter of fact in a catena of decisions, held that “when the surviving members of the coparcenary had already partitioned their properties and become owners to the extent of their share, the property ceases to be joint family property and all the succeeding heirs succeed to their resp....
The suit property was claimed to be not a Joint Hindu Family and copacenary property. It was averred that the parties were not governed by Hindu Law, in the matter of alienation but by customary law, in the matter of succession and alienation. It was, thus claimed that defendant No.1 being sole owner of the suit land could validly transfer the land in favour of defendant No.2. The suit property was self-acquired property of defendant No.1.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
