Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Insight: The law has evolved, and recent amendments and judgments now recognize daughters' coparcenary rights, but prior to these, their share was not automatic.
Joint Family Property and Ceasing to be Coparcenary - When a coparcenary is partitioned or property is divided by metes and bounds, it ceases to be joint family property and becomes separate or individual property of the members. The property which had fallen to the share of Nityananda is not stated as from out of that share of Nityananda ["Padma Charan Sahoo VS Dharmananda Pani - Orissa"], and the property allotted to the share of the 1st respondent Ramanathan is his absolute property and not ancestral property ["ILAVARASI RAMANATHAN vs MEHAMALA - Madras"].
Insight: Proper partitioning is crucial in establishing individual rights; without it, the property remains joint or ancestral, affecting inheritance rights.
Inheritance of Female Heirs and Law Applicability - Under Mitakhara law, females traditionally did not inherit as coparceners but could inherit as sapindas or through specific provisions, depending on the context. The Viramitrodya does not deal specifically with succession to a maiden's property but provides for succession to a childless married girl ["02000082577"]. The law's applicability influences whether females like widows or daughters can claim shares. The court held that... the widow inherits her husband's property as his sapinda ["02000082577"].
Insight: The evolution of law has progressively recognized female inheritance rights, but these depend on the law in force at the relevant time and the nature of the property.
Validity of Will and Right to Disposition - Under Mitakhara law, coparceners cannot dispose of their undivided interest by Will, as it conflicts with survivorship rights. No coparcener not even a father could dispose of by Will his undivided coparcenary interest ["JHUMURI vs PANDHU - Orissa"]. However, in certain cases, voluntary dispositions made when the person was in sound disposing mind are upheld.
Insight: The law aims to preserve coparcenary interests from being freely disposed of by Will, maintaining the integrity of joint family rights.
Share in Joint Family Property and Ceasing as Joint Property - When a coparcenary property is partitioned, each member's share becomes distinct, and the property ceases to be joint. In this partition, all the coparceners and the widow get a share in the joint family property ["Bhimasi Fakirappa Bijjur VS Nagesh Bhimappa Waddar @ Maktedar - Karnataka"]. The property then becomes individual or separate property of the heirs.
Insight: Proper partitioning is essential for establishing clear individual ownership and preventing future disputes over joint property.
Share of Widows and Other Heirs - Widows and other heirs inherit their respective shares based on the law applicable at the time. The wife of the deceased inherits her husband's property as his sapinda ["02000082577"]. The rights of widows and female heirs depend on whether the property is ancestral, coparcenary, or self-acquired, and on the law in force.
Overall Conclusion:Under Mitakhara law and Hindu law principles, sons automatically inherit coparcenary interest by birth, while daughters' rights depend on the law applicable at the time of inheritance. Property ceases to be joint upon partition, with individual shares becoming absolute. Female heirs like widows and daughters have rights that have evolved through legal reforms, but their entitlement to share in ancestral or joint family property is subject to the specific legal context and the nature of the property. Proper partition and legal compliance are essential for establishing clear ownership and inheritance rights.
In Hindu joint families governed by Mitakshara law, questions about inheritance and property rights often arise, especially regarding coparcenary property. A common query is: By birth, son will get share in the coparcenary property and joint family property of Mitakshara not ceased? This touches on whether a son's interest, acquired at birth, survives partition or other family divisions. This post breaks down the legal principles, key judgments, and nuances to help you understand these rights.
Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Mitakshara law, prevalent across much of India, governs Hindu undivided families (HUFs). Coparcenary property refers to ancestral property held jointly by male descendants up to four generations. A son born into such a family acquires a vested interest by birth in this property. This right is fluctuating and undivided, meaning it changes with births and deaths in the family but becomes fixed only upon partition. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193Pachiammal VS Arjuna Gounder - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 414
As established in judicial rulings, a son acquires a right by birth in coparcenary and joint family property. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193Pachiammal VS Arjuna Gounder - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 414 This interest is a fluctuating, undivided interest that only becomes definite upon partition. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193Pachiammal VS Arjuna Gounder - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 414
A key misconception is that partition automatically ends the coparcenary and a son's birth right. However, partition typically divides shares without dissolving the joint family status unless there's a valid and complete severance.
In essence, partition delineates portions but doesn't erase the underlying coparcenary unless explicitly severed.
Courts have consistently upheld the son's birth right across partitions.
This case reinforces that a son's interest in ancestral or coparcenary property persists and is not extinguished by partition unless there is a complete and effective dissolution of the coparcenary. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193
The Supreme Court clarified: The property in the hands of a sole coparcener allotted in partition shall be his separate property for the same shall revive only when a son is born to him, indicating that the son's right by birth in coparcenary property continues despite partition until a formal dissolution. Pachiammal VS Arjuna Gounder - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 414
These precedents emphasize that the son's pre-existing vested right endures.
Post-partition, a son retains rights in the father's allotted share if it remains coparcenary. This is crucial in ongoing joint family setups. However, modern laws like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) introduce changes.
Under HSA Section 6 (pre-2005 amendment), coparcenary interests devolved by survivorship. Post-amendment, daughters also became coparceners, but sons' birth rights remain foundational. K. Kailasamoorthy VS N. Indiradevi - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3205
In cases like the one involving Kandhasamy's properties, courts affirmed ancestral character persists, allowing coparceners (including post-2005 daughters) to claim shares. K. Kailasamoorthy VS N. Indiradevi - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3205 The court noted properties retain coparcenary nature despite prior divisions unless fully severed.
Another ruling highlights: Upon a father's death leaving a son and daughters, partitioned shares under HSA Section 8 make heirs tenants-in-common, not joint tenants, ceasing joint coparcenary unless proven otherwise. Bhanwar Singh VS Puran - 2008 2 Supreme 285 The properties ceased to be joint family property and all the heirs... would succeed to his interest as tenants in common. Bhanwar Singh VS Puran - 2008 2 Supreme 285
The son's right isn't absolute:
In tribal or customary contexts in Odisha, Mitakshara applies selectively, but core coparcenary rules hold. JHUMURI vs PANDHU
For revenue partitions under state laws like Rajasthan or Chhattisgarh codes, follow procedural rules to avoid reversals. Kajod Sharma VS Jaipur Development Authority - 2011 Supreme(Raj) 1866Chandrika Prasad Kesharwani VS Mangal Ram Kesharwani - 2016 Supreme(Chh) 269
In conclusion, a son typically gets a share by birth in Mitakshara coparcenary and joint family property, and this interest does not cease upon partition unless the joint family is legally dissolved. Understanding these nuances can prevent family disputes and ensure fair inheritance. For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
#MitaksharaLaw, #CoparcenaryRights, #HinduJointFamily
of Mangala, she was not one of the recognised legal heirs under the Benares School of Mitakhara law as is prevalent in Orissa, and as such she is not entitled to inherit the property as that school does not recognise females as Bandhus, the only class of heirs she can claim to be. ... That case, though not an authority as to whether a female like the father's brother's daughter is a Bandhu or not, it was said there that she did not get#HL_E....
fell to the share of Gandhi. ... Thus, defendant No.4 had no alienable right over the suit property. ... Thus, the finding of learned Trial Court to the ef and others, reported in 62 (1986) CLT 123 submits that the tribals of Odisha are guided by Hi ndu Mitakhara ... Gandhi sold her share of land when she w as in need of money by virtue of a registered sale deed and delivered possession to the plaint/span
ceased to be a Hindu Undivided Family Property. ... After the death of Tulsi Ram, Babu Ram, whose heirs were the appellants therein, inherited 1/5th share in the property. The relationship between the parties was not in dispute. Tulsi Ram was the owner of the property. ... The Gujarat High Court’s view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son who is intended to be excluded under Section 8 to inherit, the la....
So it is quite apparent that the land purchased by defendant no. 4 can get easily adjusted towards the share of said vendor even if it is not excluded from the total land holding the sale made by defendant no. 2 for the benefit of the family although admittedly he enjoys in the position of karta even ... The same is claimed to be the ancestral property. It has not been pleaded that Mani had got it from his father or ancestor. ... The parties are governed by Mitakhara School of Hindu La....
a 1 as Om SaudagarSingh owned one share
It is not disputed that if Hari had not executed Ext. 1, his share would have devolved on all his heirs including Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. ... ... According to Mitakhara law, no coparcener not even a father could dispose of by Will his undivided coparcenary interest the reason being that a t the time of death the right of survivorship came in conflict with the right by devise. ... Defendant No. 1 resisted the suit on the following grounds: (1) The will purporting to convey the undivided interest of Hari ....
not to claim any share over that property. ... The property which had fallen to the share of Nityananda is not stated as from out of that share of Nityananda, the allotment of share of the plaintiffs would only stand for consideration. ... Therefore in the suit the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of partition over schedule ‘B’ property as claimed. ... Recitals contain clear admission of Nityananda through....
In this partition, all the coparceners and the male Hindu's widow get a share in the joint family property. ... This being the case, the ancestral property ceased to be joint family property on the date of death of Jagannath Singh, and the other coparceners and his widow held the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. ... The inevitable corollary of this position is that the heir will get his or her share#....
Even, assuming Palaniappa's property is ancestral property in the hands of Karuppan, still because of the effect of the statute, Karuppan's son will not have an interest in the property. ... The learned Senior Counsel would also draw our attention to para 73, wherein it was observed that at a partition of the coparcenary property between the Hindu father and the Hindu son, the wife of the father as well as the widowed mother of the father would get one share equal to ....
On such division of the property, the character of the property ceased to be coparcenary in nature. ... 1999 , do not affect the coparcenary nature of the property. ... However, this fact alone does not alter the character of the property, which is admittedly inherited from the ancestral and retains the ingredients of coparcenary property. ... On separation of the property and allotment of a share to the defendan....
Therefore as submitted referring to the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which has a reference to the doctrine of lis pendens, it will have to be considered. Very basic concept of HUF is community of interest and unity of possession will prevail and when there is any such transaction, it will have to be considered vis-avis such concept of joint interest of all coparcener or joint family and limited undivided share of one of the co-parcener. Therefore as the undivided share in the property is fluctuating and could get crystallized only on partition, which wil....
The judgment and decree of the civil court was affirmed by the first appellate court and also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in second appeal. 1. Extent of share between the petitioners and the respondents, of land was adjudicated by the civil court in a civil suit for partition filed by one of the parties. The jurisdictional civil court by its judgment and decree directed that Badri Prasad Kesharwani will get one half share in the suit property whereas, Chandrika Prasad Kesharwani, Kedarnath Kesharwani and Smt. Mohar Bai Kesharwani each one will get ¼th share in the suit land....
Learned Counsel strongly canvassed that once the share of the co-parceners was determined, it ceased to be the co-parceneay property. The Petitioners have filed the present writ petition just with an intention to frustrate the proceedings regarding issuance of lease deed in the indraprasth Scheme. He has cited the case of Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 46 in support thereof.
The question as to whether a female has a right to institute a suit for partition never fel1 for determination before their Lordships nor such points seems to be argued before their Lordships. The question that fell for determination before their Lordships was as to what would be share of a widow upon interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Their Lordships found that a widow would not only get a share in the share of her husband along with her sons but she will also have to be allotted her own share in the co-parcenary property along with son upon death of husband ....
Since the notional partition takes place little prior to the death of Venkanagouda patil, in which event, plaintiff gets a share in the notional partition and further she becomes entitled to claim the partition. As on the said date, if the suit schedule property is divided, notionally Venkanagouda Patil will get one share, son will get one share and plaintiff will also get one share. Since the notional partition takes place little prior to the death of Venkanagouda patil, in which event, plaintiff gets a share in the notional partition and further she becomes entitled to cl....
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
