Relinquishment by Coparcener - Validity and Binding Effect A relinquishment or renunciation of coparcenary rights by a coparcener does not automatically bind other coparceners or affect the rights of subsequent born sons or daughters. Such relinquishments are only effective among the parties involved and do not constitute absolute transfer of entire share unless executed properly and with legal validity. For example, a deed executed by Preetamlal in favor of his mother Surja Bai did not transfer his entire undivided share, especially since his elder son Ramsanehi was already born at the time, limiting the effect of the relinquishment (Sources: Ramsanehi Loniya, S/o. Late Pritam Lal Loniya VS Sudha Singh Chauhan, W/o. Late Shankar Lal Loniya - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 625, State Of Gujarat VS Shalin Mukeshbhai Patel - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 2085).Analysis: The law recognizes that relinquishment by a coparcener is an extinction of his interest, not a transfer that binds all coparceners or future heirs unless specifically agreed upon. Moreover, if a relinquishment is executed before a son is born, it does not affect the rights of a pre-born son who acquires coparcenary status upon birth.Conclusion: Executed relinquishment deeds by a coparcener are not binding on sons born subsequently, and such relinquishments do not create absolute ownership over the entire share unless properly executed and recognized legally.
Effect of Birth of Pre-born or Post-born Sons/Daughters The legal position, as clarified by courts and statutes, is that a son born before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is considered a coparcener by birth, and his rights are recognized accordingly. Similarly, daughters are conferred coparcenary rights on par with sons, whether born before or after the relevant amendments (Sources: Vedhavalli (Died) VS Venkatesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1854, N. Kalavathy VS Sriramulu Naidu [deceased] - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1817).Analysis: The Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma case confirmed that daughters, like sons, become coparceners at birth, with rights exercisable prospectively from the date of the law's commencement. This implies that relinquishments made before the birth of a son or daughter do not affect their subsequent rights.Conclusion: Rights of pre-born or post-born children as coparceners are protected, and relinquishments executed before their birth do not bind them or extinguish their future rights.
Oral Relinquishment and Formal Requirements Under Hindu law and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, relinquishment of coparcenary rights need not necessarily be in writing; oral relinquishment can be valid. However, such relinquishments must be genuine and made with clear intention, and a registered deed is the safest mode to establish validity (Sources: Vedhavalli (Died) VS Venkatesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1854, T. Vijaya VS Turkapalli Mallaiah - 2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 958).Analysis: Courts have held that oral relinquishments are valid but require proof of genuine intent. Nonetheless, formal registration provides conclusive evidence of such acts, especially in disputes involving third parties.Conclusion: While oral relinquishments are valid, executing a registered deed is advisable to ensure legal enforceability and clarity.
Relinquishment and Subsequent Rights of Heirs When a coparcener relinquishes his interest, especially if done before the birth of other coparceners, it does not preclude the rights of those who are yet to be born or who acquire rights later. For instance, a relinquishment by a mother in favor of her son does not bind subsequent heirs or affect their rights (Sources: Kanhaiyalal S/o Late Shri Shyola Alias Sheonarain VS Ram S/o Late Shri Shyola Alias Sheoram - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 880, Sathesh Kumar vs Vellaiammal - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57258).Analysis: The rights of coparceners are based on their birth and status at the time of acquisition; relinquishment affects only the interest of the coparcener executing it, not the rights of future heirs or coparceners born later.Conclusion: Relinquishment by a coparcener is not binding on sons or heirs born after the deed's execution, especially if executed before their birth.
Invalidity of Deeds Executed Under Certain Conditions or Without Proper Authority Deeds executed under improper conditions or without proper authority, such as by minors or through fraudulent means, are invalid and do not bind the estate or other coparceners. For example, a relinquishment deed not executed on behalf of a minor son is not binding (Sources: Kanhaiyalal S/o Late Shri Shyola Alias Sheonarain VS Ram S/o Late Shri Shyola Alias Sheoram - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 880, MRS N.KALAVATHY vs MR.SRIRAMULU NAIDU(DECEASED) - Madras (2023)).Analysis: Validity hinges on proper execution, legal capacity, and adherence to procedural requirements. Deeds executed in violation of these principles are null and unenforceable.Conclusion: Relinquishment deeds must be properly executed, and any executed on behalf of minors without proper authority are not binding on subsequent or future interests.
Summary:Relinquishment executed by a coparcener is generally not binding on sons born later or pre-born sons who acquire coparcenary rights upon birth. Such acts are effective only among the immediate parties and require proper legal formalities for enforceability. The rights of children born before or after the relinquishment are protected under law, and oral relinquishments, while valid, are better supported by registered deeds to prevent disputes.
![N. Kalavathy VS Sriramulu Naidu [deceased] - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1817](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_small_2.png)
