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 ["2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 727"], ["2006 0 Supreme(Ker) 90"].
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 ["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 ["1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 124"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 15838"].
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 ["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 ["1970 0 Supreme(Ker) 257"], ["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 ["1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 124"], ["
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 ["2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 727"], ["1970 0 Supreme(Ker) 257"].
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 ["2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 727"], ["2006 0 Supreme(Ker) 90"].
In the intricate world of Hindu , disputes over division often arise, especially when heirs question: how is a property partitioned? Is it by or ? 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.
property refers to under Hindu law, primarily governed by the . —typically male descendants up to four generations—hold by birth. Traditionally, property devolves by , but severs this unity, allotting specific shares. The mode of — or —hinges on custom, agreement, or default rules. 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
Under classical Mitakshara law, absent proof of custom or agreement, occurs . 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. 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
Courts affirm: in the absence of specific proof of custom or agreement, the default mode of is . 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346 This preserves family lineage equity. In a case under the , the court held: as per the Hindu law it is division that is possible... The joint property will therefore be divided into three parts corresponding to the remaining three branches, each branch taking 1/3.
As one ruling notes: The 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. 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 339 However, courts lean without evidence otherwise. 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
The , revolutionized rights by granting daughters status by birth, equal to sons. Rights accrue at birth, not or father's death.
01500066454
This shift promotes equality but doesn't override modes directly. still considers the at division time. Daughters now claim branches equally. Statutory changes emphasize: via court decree, registered instrument, or bona fide arrangement. 2018 6 Supreme 476
In cases post-amendment, courts uphold birth rights: Recent statutory amendments... confer rights on daughters by birth, making them 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. 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346
For example, in a succession dispute, the court queried: whether they have to take the property or ? and ruled based on a settlement deed intending notional halves per son's male heirs—effectively . 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 3840
Another case clarified: All the succeeding heirs succeed to their respective shares not as joint tenants but as – The property devolves upon them not but ... particularly when the property has been partitioned. 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2619 Here, post-, applied due to tenancy-in-common status.
Absent proof, prevails: the mode of ( or ) can be determined by the evidence of custom, agreement, or conduct of the parties, but absent such proof, courts tend to favor . 1934 0 Supreme(Mad) 68
disrupts . Methods include:- Court decree- Registered deed- Bona fide family arrangement
Physical is essential for undivided property before possession handover or sale. A coparcener can't alienate specific undivided shares without authority (e.g., ). Such transfers are void or voidable. 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1583 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 535
Judicially: actual physical is necessary before possession can be handed over to any co-sharer or vendee. 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1583 In a transfer dispute, the court ruled a co-owner lacks competence to transfer definite joint parts without : defendant No.1 had no competence to transfer the land... inasmuch as the land was never partitioned. 2016 0 Supreme(Tri) 108
Post-, shares become , alienable freely. Once partitioned, property ceases joint family character. 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 487
Mohinder Kaur VS Pargat Singh
Mohinder Kaur VS Pargat Singh
01500066454
Partitioning property demands careful navigation of tradition, statute, and family dynamics. While generally applies, consent enables flexibility toward 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:- 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 346: Traditional principles.- 2018 6 Supreme 476: Amendments and modes.-
01500066454
: Daughters' rights.- 1934 0 Supreme(Mad) 68: Custom and division modes.-: Kerala 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
