Ascent Publinas:-Reprints 2014/2015/2016/2017 © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form including translation by any means without prior permission of the author. . Price : % 250.00 iene bn ier rapist plication i being sold on the condition an hat gor & I be taker as hor birding in ao deadlier cheno clei cree ee ati for any damage rls to any perso, tho may or may no be a of ts 21/29, Shakti Nagar, Delhi - 110 007 Printed at: G.S. Offset, Delhi. CONTENTS HINDU LAW HINDU JOINT FAMILY AND COPARCENARY 1-24 PROPERTY IN HINDU LAW vessesenennenee 25-53 RIGHTS AND POWERS OF KARTA AND COPARCENERS seesertssneenessssssneeeeeetes 54-64 ALIENATION OF HINDU JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY vosssscsesssreeene PIOUS OBLIGATION OF A SON PARTITION AND REUNIO! HINDU LAW OF SUCCESSION.. HINDU WOMAN'S PROPERTY ..w 92 pose sopueUD A ouPeW leg ‘962 Peseid sanyBey rea WwoR 2 UBIEN UeH A ueg seieveg oor's'st UMW 4 aNVANIVE fe 17 UBIEN A seq pulqosieg 091 reqewyymy A xngerea 812'412 eg OBUEH WS A peuseid UPER £62 sug 10 oeIg A Weney,reIngeR ‘89 eum Jepufey A sewny EMUsY LE emupenn reweua A eMupen fewer UeKY €L VNNV § GNIALY Ov'82 VHINVORUAW 4 WYTWHOVNTEY sez epuouEur A sewny uny Lab tiny euexeseuedung » wenseieddy 621 eipueyouey 4 Hedy 61 Maquiemysouued A iAea seuy 9 seyueus A qweuy ¥9 1edop A weuy LAs HEN A ipueuy 604 uesaieuiny A oaxeyeuuy Zee reqequir A jereuaq-a1eoonpy Sp semeuD A LOW 09 UeWOW Hekd A expuEYD Keay 9c seae7 Inpay ¥S A VEN InpaY ze Ueuy EZMANY A UEU UEUEWY ImPay Ze STUOOA PaWOUeN A PeBWeH IMPay 2st'98t 1G83HVS 4 939 ZI4VH TNGEY E21 UeuOR Uekd A espuEYD AeGay ‘94 98€9 UeRopneEA “LV SASVD 40 FTV 91 peseid (pug A peseld weuieg ~~ S1AT JO. MVT WIISAW “FF “ STIIM JO MV1 WTISNIA Ot SONVLTETHNI JO MVT WIISAW “6. ACT TIS (9 907 regFamily Lavw-H1 (vi) ‘Beni Ram y Man Singh 102 > BHAGAT RAM v TEJA SINGH 265 [Bhagirathi v Jhoku Ram 101 Bhagwani v Mohan Singh 3 ‘Bhagwant P. Sulakhe v Digambar Gopal Sulskhe 51,128 hola Prasad v Ramkumar 61 Bhubaneswari Debi v Nilconiul Lahir 150 Bhura v Kashiram 276 Bishambar Nath v Lala Amar 159 Bishnudeo v Seogant 172 ‘Chamanial v Mohan Lal 202 Ram Singh 80 ‘uri Matton v Ganga Prasad 119 CWT v CHANDER SEN 43,4547 D. Velusamy v D. Patchalammal 179 Daya Singh v Dhan Ki Deen Dayal v Jugdeep Narsin 63 Desari v Desari 76 DEV KISHAN v RAM KISHAN 71,05 Dhanistha Kalta v Ramakanta Kalita 255 MT 62 awe v Pandurang Miragu Agslawe 148, Dropadi Devi v Jagdish 63 Family Lavw-Hl (vii) Emana v Gudiseva 253 Fkir Nyanar v Kandasamy 369 Fateh Singh v Lakhbie Singh 37 Fatmabibi v Abdul Rehman 365 Gallamusi v Indian Overseas Bank 76 Ganachari Veersiah v Ganachari Shiva Rarjani 132 Gangi v Tammi 80 Gangu v Chandrabhagabai 204 GAURAMMA v MALLAPPA 106,109 Gaurav Sikri v Kaushalya Sikri 45 Gauri Shankar v Jiwan Singh 74 Girdhari Lal v Fateh Chand 154 Gita Bai v Sadashiv Dhundira 136 Gitjanandini Devi v Brifendra Narain 62 Girja Bal v Sada Shiv 141 Gorachand Mukherjee v Malabika Dutta 204 Govind Gurunath v Deekappa Mallappa 69 Grandhi v Granghi 172 Gulam Abbas v Haji Al 301 GUMPHA v JAIBAI 200206... GURUPAD v HIRABAI 189,217, Gurusami v Jayaraman 129 Guruswamy v Marappa 66 Hamid Ullah v Ahmad Ullah 373 Hans Raj v Ktiushal Singh 77 Had Singh v Umrao Singh 76 Hau Laxman v Bugha Manku 97 HAYATUDDIN v ABDUL GANI 370 Hemaatha v Uma 238 Hemraj v Khem Chand 119 Henumayamma v Todikamalla Kotiingam 295 Humera Bibi v Najmunnissa 364,360 HUNOOMANPERSAUD PANDAY v MUSSUMAT BABOOEE MUNRAJ KOONWEREE 69,100 Husain Begum v Mohd, Mehdi 333621 leipuaqyouey A pueyo veIni ‘Ste lala euny » peuwweUniN 92'9 TWHLIA HSANVD A HIVNYMHSIA OUOW as nog ever Aye 4 BES PHORL ¥S1 Ueyy UeseH InqdeWy A YBUIS UES J8RI P02 UBUSUEUNL IANS A NOU 2 uu UENO Rout cacese've edu 4 eddehor ost emseby wewveber ysEyeld WO A neg exeH 6°12 IWHVS NVGNYH VAHSDA NAVE” NED NIVEA “OW ‘p0z. YBUIS snpeyeg Aelig a yBuIS Jepeg eI Gee G85 UEPEW n eS wooseR 201 veweunnéon » vedere | zap Shep 1H A wey ooaben 15 wuense 52 ovr yOu e16ueN 2 eddeyen » edcesoyen oe veuquew ve svc HONIS ANYAFIO * HONIS VEOH 1 ve (oosey Aaa eunureN {96 919 H9880H » ySING POUOUERL 21 a wes A se0 eMusoUERL 2s Hews poKS m geues goodven be ueddesseyon 6 veseunura UeReWPER i (4M) HONIS HNOLNVS 4 "O17 (d) SLNSIWLS3ANI ANVON “S/W. zh Kins eden “TW A AioS eXereaans TH BEL YEUEEA TWD WA YeMeUBEe) 6zi rereuar remueAer 1ysog A BEN eT Wury JeUnT | pre 17 WOW A fey UXT $5 weunde A wee og 161 ehewey A npevea 121 zr euuevonsueing 4 noeunied MAE y Zn RIEDEL § OEUNE ET “ £92 ubuig edi a yOug veunoey (9 07 speng JON A o8y BeKeXUENY 922 usteUEON Hunt 62 ecang A wensexewny 144 mekreypeyuasexen A ewwwernpnst 9 UeAESey eUOYD A upoogWEN UeUYsH 9 wesequepyg 8 wgunueuysuy €z siojebueg ‘110 A peselg euysiny 994 410 A (ani) reulonos, 91108 oby enseques lueseioy A uewnyens lUEsEIOy, ‘BU pensiog PURO A VEWYER IMEI 21 17 nygeig.A-wEVEN TeMon, PL 17 nugesg A EIEN Lemay, og UOuig Uew A red 2eseH1 voz sebesewes eddewuey eddenewn A juewso} eddeyehues wor eneyouar S91 yBuIS VELEN A YIEN JEP, 8b4 Seuebied ¥Z sd}29I09 A WHEAUSED 9 ewivewysye7 Ce) WeMseureUERsiA A jeunweINWZe> 91 pur jo vown * wenepersg emey 189 1eqvopung A yBuIS ooIey £98 epreuied * ewuin esigey, He sah, ouysIyeWeN AD A Joh] WeMseUEhEIEN A Appa uekeven eieyuen a KPpeY “On oz eddewey °y A eAKeryununvers > 26 uBuis IRL eID A ybuIS JeWlnr (09 419 A e1ousiy feBnr 0s) expuewowey weuuen a Tewuy fear O11 exewumg A eddenspeyen eddevusr ‘S02 19d J0 LON Jo aes A eupeUD WEY Heuer 6ez'26z ered “SL A weqeuer: 62 1042 puinynny semisaiON A HOUS erPUEWRIENR reqeUNWer ‘ ro1'94 $20 esneW A UIEIEN YeBEr UuR'682 Td WVGVEVHLIN 4 IYTTid NVHLYNNVOWT / 981 ueKeseudooy A uekerevesput 68E COGIES A YY WeIO9D WEG pry SueyFamily Lawl (x) ‘Munna Lal v Raj Kumar 275, ‘Mutt v Bindeswari 68 MUSA MIYA v KADAR BUX 378 Nabi Sab v M. Papiah 37 Nagappa Chettiar v Subramanian 170 NAMDEV VYANKAT GHADGE v CHANDRAKANT GANPAT GHADGE 147 Nanu Ram v Radhabai 161 \Narashimaha Murthy v Smt, Susheelabai 241 Narayanlal v Controller of Estate Duty 33 4 "Narendranath v Commr. Wealth Tax 22 Neelavva v Bhimawa 193 Nemi Chand v Hira Chand 55 Nikanta v Ram Chandra 30 Nirmal v Satnam 75 Official Assignee v Rajabadar 63 (OM PRAKASH v RADHACHARAN 258,287 ‘Onkar v Kishan Singh 101 . Kunheema Umma v P. Ayissa Umma 360 P.G. Hariharan v Pa PS. Sairam v PS, Palaniappa v Commr, Income Tax 51 Palaniappa v Deivasikamony 75,77 Pandu v Goma 97 Papayya v Venkata 142 Pappaya v Venkatakrishna Reo 172 Paraqmasivam v Rama Swami 30 Parasram v Smt. Naraini Devi 72 Parvati Kaur v Sarangadhar 33, Patel v Lakkireddigari 101 PEDASUBHAYYA v AKKAMMA 144,171,172 Lakkiteddiv Lakshamma 171 Permanayakam v Sivaraman 98,100 Perumalakka v Balakrishnan 108 Piyare Lal v LT. Comme, 54 Ponnamma v Aspinwal 84 Pran v Rajendra 3 Fe Prasad v Govindswami Mudali Prem Singh v Dharam Singh 94 Pushpalatha NV. v V. Padma 219 Puttrangamma v Ranganna 141,155.165,167 Qamarud-din v Mt. Hassan Jan 381 R. KUPPAYEE v RAJA GOUNDER 114 Radha Ammal v CIT 58 Radha Krishna v Satyanarayan 155 Radhamoni v Dibaker 2 Radhika v Anguram 253,286 Raghubanchmani v Ambika Prasad 88 RAGHVAMMA:y CHENCHAMMA 137,142,165,168. ‘Raj Kumar Singh v Comme, Income Tax 51 Ram Sunder Lat v Lachmi Narain 74 Rama Nagappa Mahar v N. Mallappa Mahar 137 Ramaswamy Aiyer v Vengiii@am Iyer 112 Ramcharan v Girjanandam 152 Ramvichpal v Bikaner Stores 76,108 Rani v Shanta 67 Ratan Lal Bora v Mohd. Nabiuddin 358 Ratnam v Kuppuswami 170, : Re Alma Latif 346 Rukhmabai v Laxminarayan 2 Rulia v Jagdish 72 'S. NARAYANAN v MEENAKSHI 240 Sadhu Singh v Gurdwara Sahib 260 Safla Begum v Abdul Razak 369 ‘Sant Singh v Mata Ram 89 Santosh v Saraswathibai 296 Sarda Prasad v Umeswar Prasad 55 ita Chauwhan v Chetan Chauwhan 202£2), ueuy powuy 1e7 A whee ePOuEZ, +496 teaunieg A ueud “SA ez nea NTT A voqesA (044 reunweysoad A jeuneronsn ‘6c euweuekereuerexuon A BURLEsENLEA fy S1emsg A ejuewerqnse}eyuen 99 Oy Eputuy A eqaNs EIEHUEA 19} eueKeseueieyuon * euverven es2 oeeqgns © A ewueneyser 21007 6z wesewyes A wesen PL'9rt mneg * wesen 469 ndeveneker A mesuuuen, sze'098 AWVHNNY HIVNVAREYN NYTWDIVHIVd 4 WINN VSABHIVH “d VITVA 99 seNaYD eddeBEN A YoY JeUWENIEA 109 eddeypray a wewunsien La WHened A A YEIEML A 897'L/2 AGOTY VHS3HS ‘A A VWVSTNL ‘A eez'ez mus A eHsN 125 wey satus A e1pu Jo uoKN, sz pmo 9BeN A epMOD aif Siz Kopay eysous & eunwesern), ‘9g reunqu, enuaray yeselng A Seq UeROUgHL, 611 esBy “sfpnr UIsIG A YBUIS Tee UEUSOL: 601 ueueveuesiey A uopunsesndy 20} UICIN YEH A yuEG se/eU9g Ou uz yous weber n yous eek pr Suey 89 oopnsea A peseid WEL Z9¢ eSsUNIYEN A UIpERINEUS “NL 9 euseyey! A euWergnseIeyuen 1 2g eueKheuoyy + A eunuewereysous ‘1 68} Oeeresen A reqequsns 94 eipueu wey A seuny wens “£9 mleuewetng A euekereueking {24 sewn aupns, 4 wrevespueins 91 sewn expuotey « ewieus WeN expueins Orb ueseN feabl 4 weseN leans O6'ee'ss Hevolveld Wa * wvHIN INNS, 18 RIVWINM VHSY # AVavA HaQNNS Li eunweweeg a exwesepung lz emg 4 senysouns 952 WOU weMeg 6 gefund 19 21S 26) by uekeION A enysereueHs Jo sieIs 89 mueypesas 4 oy senuus S50 USHEG eIneHY YHOUS A WUEsed eos St HONIS NVSSYM 4 Oia “LHS 99 1eg euwer n uéu 22 sepuen 29 peseld UeMYSeUPIS A Ie WENIIS S$ eddeur a eddeppis 85 unypnoyD unshy A weInBoous 69E UEP ePIEGNZ A PEUUY ZENA PEWLLELMAY UNOS 822 Tere A neqieys. 962 Jepunzeyy nunog A uexUEWeIans peIeYS Ze} reqnBng * wereweus. 996 uous UesseH A YeUs Hy PeUsWeUS 6F2 ous IpuOy weIeHS A Susy UeSDY HeYeUS sz se6uaKy Wy A ewuemysyey eas Ish quenejey A wey uemes (08) 11-9071 Spyou 1 2 a References (Family Law-Il) ‘Mulla: Principles of Hindu Law. Mayne: Hinds Law and Usage AN. Sarkar & Treatise on Hinds Law Paras Divan: Modein Hindu Law! Family Law Jaspal Singh: Hinds Law of Mariage & Dyote. Kuma Desa Inéian Law of Mariage & Orca RK. Agorvat Hindu Law PO. Kesar Hin Law BM. Gandhi. Hindu Lae NH. shabvale: Principles of Hindu Law Poonam Pradhan Sarene: Family Law asim Law ‘Male: Pciles of Mohammedan La AAA. Fytee: Outlines of Muhammadan Law Dt Tahir Mahmood: The Muslim Law of india 8 Tab Musi Lan, Ameer Ae Ma The Indon Low insu: islamic Law in Ind, Aqui Ahmed: Mohammedan Lan Kak Rashi: Mohammedan Law NH, Inabvale: The Principles &t Muhammadan Law ther Sources ‘Supreme Court Yearly Digests - SCYD (1995-2011): Shaina Matk (E4) (Eastin Book Co), Cases and Metrils on Fanity Law: Facly of Law, Delhi Univers, Det. Question Papers Reteed - Debi and Other Indian Universes: Competthe Exams. ooeee RE REI a RR etm ee AR ARR ite) lose) ‘Aue of np @ J sweP!DU PUR ydaDuED OM UE“ -uondope 10 afeseus £q daoxo 11 o1t 9 ious saBuens Y “Sonued ax uodiag wuoWOasse Ue Aq sroglaut ay} Jo 198 eo yore pazipooas Kyje8aq v st 2} ‘spuom 9410 Uf ve] JO UOTEaD e STAT (1) ae laa Ajpumey yujof npuyy ® Jo somstiaroesoyo samy OU “(uondope 20 fe na "ou fe BurBug 205 iyBnep parsopim pue uos "syuepua9sap 9jeus [eat iy Jo pu Jorsaoue uounuos syn Jo sioiynep pauureuuN pue sMopLA a9 im sogadon uuonesous® fue 01 dn sjuepuaosap ojeut Isu09 (Ae PADYSYDI ue yuotoue te Ajurey yujor npuyH, | Axeuaoiedog pue TWt has no tegal members who corporation is a unit and anager). Status can be acquired into it only by -birth, marriage to a male member, and adoption. ic person. It is not affairs it is represented by its Karta (head (5) Ouster of a member from joint family: Status can be lost by - conversi to a non-Hindu faith, marriage to a non-Hindu under riage Act, 1954, on being given in valid adoption, and, on partition, ist of a single male member and hers, or a single male member and a widow of Coparcener, or even when there are only widows. The rule is even on the death of sole surviving coparcei int family does not come to an end so long as nature or law (ie. adoption) to add a male member to ibai v Ram Chandra AIR 1970 SC 343). A single male or female cannot make a joint family. Thefe must be at least vo members to constitute it. Hindu Undivided Fe revenue statutes use which appears to be joint family (See und 338), in food, worship and estate, or in any separately and mess apart, s “union in estate’ is quite essen The presumption is stronger among the nearer relations (viz. father and his sons or the real brothers sian as among an uncle and his nephew or as among cousins). Thus the strength of the presumption of jointness varies with the degree of generations. ‘There is no presumption that joint f (KO. Reddy xy a member Property (JFP) has to prove that Purchased in the joint names, ie presumption of jointness viz. partition and shagwani v Mohan Singh AIR 1925 PC 1 jing severance of the Hindu joint family to prov. ‘one takes the plea of partition, he has to prove Coparcenary? The Mitakshara concept of coparcenary is based on the notion of ‘son's birth right in the joint family property. Not merely a son, but son's son and son’s son’s son acquire an interest by birth in family property. 2A Milakshara coparcenary is a narrower body as compared to a Mitakshara Joint family? Discuss with the help of case law. ‘All coparceners ar joint family members, but al jin family members are not coparceners.” Discuss, [LC.494; LC.1-96 (Suna“9-rols002-n'a) -qwounuon, Tol Jo aouayea Ox) YaHe OU Soop KLeUaDHedGD Jo VORDUS SUL. “Y {peap ap &q 40 wonnred £q pus ue 0} sowoo Arousaiedo exeysxE V | yo ot ‘youaoredoo Sulatains 9f0s JO yeysiaquiows afeut au ITP JO | Areusoredog Jo von aunra FS pue $a suos om si puE G Jo ISSU0: ‘soup 3821s stun Te J] PUR UE O1 S0WOD sroU20zedoo HullHoseq 4942 Jo aouvya stouy pure Axtadoud aup Jo sopjoy ise] ayp wos SoaxSap anoy wu) iow Aq paroutas 198 {$4 Pue Sa FeIs sit puE Cl PUR Y JO ISISU09 {iw Aipusosedoa ‘sop 3 MOU J] "a PLE ip wip “ou soIp 2 pur “SHY SoIp J ‘SKduIENa anoge ax UI Saou ayeUK HOUIWIOD ayy JO aU ae \/ “puy “pure v Jo 29 Sd ‘SAP OJ! RON s9p fou 150] O48 24V 2g {I} Ateusoredos ‘satp (Jopjoy 1se7) v Jt ‘a{durexa anoge tp UT S Areuoosedog pue Aimed wlor npulH fe sapjou ise] 219 Sowo20q qf “YIRP SV UO SV "a PUP G ‘D “JO (h02) 20d", ¢ 11 me7 Auwey ‘evexes ueUPeld dE yBIBUDH 8) (ss2uzozedoo 10N) weer o-r (Grousaredo9) <-a-0-a “TE ojdwexz ‘sorsgour ojeur jeauty BuyAl] ISOUsOINaS ayp suEOLE Japloy yse7]sauz0redoo v aq j[IM 9U0 “iapjoy JeUIB0 ayn wos} oq AeU! ‘uo panouias saxzosmoy] “\edoud atp 50 427) anoy ueuy azous Aq panowas 1oU st dU0 se BuO} 204 5, puegsnt ‘aumsse pue asnoy s.ioupey ay area} Ah iP remauids pue onsowop ews otf asne29q ‘ayy 0} uorensiutu ‘wsinputH Jo joy 1Se] a4p Jo siuepuedsep st Kreuaauedoo 241 “wo os pue ‘Mayjdou pur ajaun Jo ‘sio4toig Jo “uos-puess ite soupey-pues3 Jo rsisuo> ue> Areusoiedo v sny “iessa90u YOU si WW meq Awe ’Family Law - 1 |. ILR (1873) 10 Bom 444, gives an of coparcenary (also see Example 2 discussed descendant males A, B, C, D and property. Now suppose B, C, and and the joint family property will pass by succession. ‘The coparcenary also becomes extinct when all the male members to add a male member to the family (Anant v Shankar AIR 1943 PC 196). ‘no coparcenary, it does not follow that there is Laxminarayan, 37 Bom LR 692). Coparcenary n of joint Hindu family. MORO VISHWANATH v GANESH VITHAL IILR (4873) 40 Bom 444) ‘ean be demanded by one more then four degrees from the acquirer or original owner of the property sought to be divided but that i than four degrees removed from the last owner, however remote, ‘he may be from the original owner thereof. Because, copareenary extends to four degree from owner (extinction of coparcenary)] iffs and defendants are descendants of one Udhav, acquirer and common ancestor, of the property te between them. The former are beyond and the latter within, the fourth degree from Udhav. Ganesh (plaintiff) the great grandson of Udhav who was removed more than four degrees from Udhav, demanded partition of the joint family property from Moro (defendant). ‘The appellants’ contention was that a partition could not, in any case, be demanded by descendants of a common Hindu Joint Family and Coparcenary ancestor, more than four degrees removed, of property originally descended from him. Thus, the issue was whether a person removed more than four degrees from the original acquirer of the: property can demand partition of the JFP? which certain Persons according leas of the Hindus are supposed to be capable of c gift of the funeral cake; that replied that the authorities quoted do not support the contention of the appellants; that the doctrine of ancestral A, living in a state of union, did not prevent any such desce wanding 4 partition of their JFP; that they only went so far‘as to lay down that, if A die, leaving B a son, E a grandson, G a great-grandson, and J, a great-great-grandson, the intermediate persons having all predeceased hi who stands fifth in descent from A cannot al descendants include: B (son), C (grandson) and D (great-grandson). D had twoloes6-r9'7 96-797) sAnwes 10 rou o) eUensedoo eseusyeuN © JO auLID0P ayJ “(quiom s,sey,0Ul UL pes “yuig sro wos Auvodosd Ayurey upp} 0 Bis ou Sey at UR oy * uonersdo Aq suos | pue dat Se AONE Auadoid ayy “peop same Kroussuedoo v Jo sasnueay onsusioerey> oy aim bsor toy adeumey jelsods ayn sapun adewreus sauapredos ® 29 01 95099 WY 2eU! 10U SBOP sti Inq 1 1B ou sey souaoredoo ouesu UE ‘Mme} 9q houues uos arewn 6 Aseuaciedog pue Kyweg quror npUIH ‘auinboe siausoredoy — ying q ssavany (y) ‘Arouaoredoo w uuiby = Ayyujoy ouput soquuour ajo Sutarans ysapyo out ~ Auzadoud jo 30 J9pIoy 2]eur Ise] at ‘Jo aassnyour pur ‘wosy HoKEIOUEs uM a1 SB SATBUL YOR [UD — 9PM oWDsOWes ano (€) ‘uonpied d fo aouassixy (1) tos sty papraosd tos sty pue wy Uaddiaq uopiod NPL 8 J] uonued ut areys e Burye wos papnfoxa you st wos siy ‘sayuNy I WY “stuepusosap je=ul] apeU damp sty paE sauye} out ZA “Kreuaoredos e ainunsuod Aew JfH B UL SiaquiOUl aulog ghteussiedog 40 sons}oiereyg jenuessy [yoarayp soumo jeurSu0 aip woy 2q keur ‘94 ‘s}ouIDs saAaMoy ‘Z2uKO 180) a4} WON} PaAOUIOA S90:80p INO} ey azour duo Aq papuewiep 2q 301 wey Ing Peplaip aq 01 1yfin0s Kuadoid ayp Jo 4oumo pouiS10 40 soumboe ayy wos} eAOUIaL S9a189P sno} UaYp alow! ouO Aq papureWiap aq oUNED Uonpied w yeys ou st “ways ‘ajna ax :papnjou09 uno au, uospuei8-teai8 woy, Joy uEy JOU Burpuarxa uonewuasoiday Jo YS otp ‘UospuesB-yward Suravumns 5.y “Ic £q papnjoxo are ‘uospueis-qeai8 v Jo suos Bu1oq ‘'d Pur q “sours “ouoe 1q Aq poniot asneoag “y wou Supuaosap Auadoud Jo uonned 405 1q] ans you pjnoo 4 pure 3 ‘ase sin uy“ pu J “9 C Jo suos om amp pue | UospuEld | “C_ Jaye SOIp Vy eI ‘iaraMoy ‘asoddrig fumoy Aluo ase 1q pue q searoyis ‘Kusdosd ay) Jo 19UMo UNS Y “Samp q Woy Bula 3m) pur “Kpujof 1q pue q uodn saajoaap Auadord siy Jo 2Ioym ayy uodnasaym ‘Soxp Y yoIyM saye ‘ pur g asoddns ‘eon, “(Suospuess ue q :si16%-ony 5,9 pure (uospues) :9pnyout stuepusosap ea ‘aindsip ur Auedord ayy yo sgumo jeu “Tensooue Buyoq 1 ‘Susdosd pres oun Jo wonzed 10} cq Joupey 0K ‘ans astsoyy] Uwo ‘wya Jo 9419 40 ‘Kay, “ypu sts OM) Sey sayearaip oym ‘q_wodn saajoxap Auadoid siy yo ajoym aun tuodnasoum soip y youyn Joye Ajumey papiaipun ue Jo sioquiott pur y Bussva] ‘1p 9 pue g asoddns ‘em ours ayy uy WW meq kuwes10 Family Law - 1 Property of a person to another during the lifetime of the former, the owner. Rule of survivorship and fluctuation of interest ~ On the death of a coparcener, his interest in the JFP devolves on the surviving coparceners by rule of survivorship and not according to law of succession. Suppose Ram has two sons SI ©) death of S2, his share in the family property will surviving two coparceners Ram and SI; and the share to which each coparcener would have been entitled during the lifbtime of 2 on partition (one-third), would be enlarged in case of Ram and $1 on the death of S2 to half each. If after death of S2, two more sons $3 and $4 are born to Ram, there will be four coparceners and hence four shares on partition. As a result, the interest of the coparceners in the coparcenary property fluctuates with the birth ishes) and death (enlarges) of the coparceners; im a definite share in the JEP whilst the bran the family. Likewise there can be a coparcenary coparc This is because a coparcenary For example, a coparcenary consists of A and his three sons B, C and D. C and D had two sons each. If C and D acquire separate property and dies, the sons of C (and D) inherit the separate property of C (and D) and between themselves birth right not merely in the the sub-coparcenary created among the sons of C and D. Hindu Joint Family and Coparcenary Mt Distinction between Joint Family and Coparcenary® ———————$ errno Hindu Joint Family Coparcenary ment Family _____Copareenary is a wider body consisting of (1) much narrower body Persons lineally descended fe joint family and father and his three eal descendants, male can be a appl apply toa HIF family form a coparcenary. (4) The coparcenary becomes extinct when all the male ‘members die (4) Death of all the male members (8) Existence of JFP is essential in 2 coparcenary, (6) On the death of coparcener, his i (1) The members of the jc enjoy very limited ri ‘maintenance and marriage expenses of unmarried daughters. although set up an individual ttle to any specific portion.‘py wewpuoury go0z aX ut eed & uy du pip vorssunwog e1R yo UoRsaBEns pies ou) YOAaMOH “@BEWEW 0K JO ‘5un une Aumap se Jo, © ayn paneos uowom yeWy 1 1 “96UEUD oun B10;20 ‘ouvels cum asoy 0} ou pue eoto} ju souIeD wweuupYaWE meu ain Joye Aue ‘04m Jawor 0} ajgeaiidde opews oq pinoys Auadord Aye) yO U) SUOS yuMe yevgeledes jenbe siaiyEnep Buyuer6 teW) pies UOysSHUWED MET OU. ~B usozlecoe-al_Ls0cz “py (weupuowy) vorssecons nui oun fa pateue fopredoa pue Aqures 1uol Np BJEYSNENN 8 Jo Y4s0UCD OH) JOUVE! YEW ULL 1g Yo aoi0y ory aurea ‘s90z “¢ 49quIadas Uo wIpUT Jo wapysaid Aq palugsse ‘s99¢ JOY (suoupusuy) uo}sse0onS MpuIE] SY, “WwoUpuDUE ‘aut p1ojoq Poors 1 se “oY auf Zapun sonyenbauy Jepuz® snow! 01 sem wie Areuiid sy ¢ 9567 32 ¥ USSecONS NpUT H elR BUFPLE UE Ig papllouiuiosay ~ axe] pur] Jepun, sur0}2y pasodosg -oWOM Jo SHY Kuadorg, — (0002) Hoda MIpLL SHE UL UOISsIMMON MET >, jou pinoo siiynep uonged puewop pinoo suos “osiy ~oMysnep w se Auodoud jeaiseoue axp jo yon se sawi daxtp isco] ye HoyUE Afaanoay> eo juos e ‘Kem sity up “ISIE UMNO sty UE areys sotoag, au seazoym ‘Kuodoud s,sourey amp UL wy YA Aifenba pareys aus jasnesaq s04p019 -aguargjuog 5:UOWOM BI uy pourmjar sem wiaisks Kreusszedos wreysye) Ajaipidwios eaoures you plnoa (¥SH) OW UoIssedong NPUIH] 9S61 MHL 18002 “oy (Uowpuowy) "SH hq Ksousszedop pue Aiwes wjor ereYsHeNW UI soRUEYO suloy UNO SIq 01 Uo|ssas0ns £q sessed Auodosd uy ut asasaIu sty juowwoo-ul-yreuay ye Jo yreap at UO “VOWED ur UOISsassod Jo ‘Ain axp Aquo yptar sop 2OUNSIp pure fe1anes Aq 14 PLOY PUR SIPURO-, se {uedoid aye) oym suosiod azz uowuloo-ur-swreuay “(Areusaredoo) + 2oueroyur wwrOf Xq uEYR astAUdINO 30 | uo 40 omy, CouRual Wot Jo Pury sooUE cuadosd ploy suosied suowuoo-u-Couona, el) Aseusosedog pue Kijweg uior npULH ayBis yans OF Sey WELD) IUIOf e Jo MOPIM e ‘eoueuoqureut oy pajtiua s{ sousauedoo paseadap & JO MOpIM OL - ain asBuoure wowar8e £q sours pure me} Jo worresado Aq aouaisixa yw sauaaredoo sauiosaq x “te. Ayradoud ayy ut rsoxaqur ou sey x “anste st y se Bu0j seop Aneuaozedoo aut 1nq Wat Jo 170 Jo sYSIsuOD 4 ‘AME O48 [TV “X UOS B Sey OSIE A 1D Wos & sey | pue 4 UOS B sey C “a HOS B Sey pure C HOS e sey °D pur gf suos o¥y sey off “azodoud yenseoue ayp Jo s9pjoy au s1 V ~ L—— vonessnn “diysuonejar osoj9 st Areuaoredoo pue Aqurey wolf oq Jo uoneMLoy Jo siseq ayt SNK, “SiaBuENS amp IsHuoUre muaWi9aide ‘iq aouarstxo owt 18n0uq oq ioUUED UE Mel Jo uONIeIAdo £q souaISIxa ‘qu aio Areuaasedoo se yjam se Ajurey yuLOl npurpy y — sonzanye MW meq Ames a4 Family Law September 2005. Ithas effected some significant changes in the concept ikshara _coparcenary/JFP, parental dwelling house, and certain ‘ights. The main significant change making all daughters importance for women, both economi amendment abolishes the doctrine of survivorship, modifies the prov in Mitakshara coparcenary, the n, the categ and margi 10 testamentary succession. The amendment had also become necessary in view of the changes in Hindu Succession Act 1956, in five Indian States namely, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra. Thesé States gave daughters, including married daughters, an equal share in the father’s ancestral property. These States (excluding Kerala) have granted daughters the right by birth family property. In Maharashtra, the amendment came into force in 1994 and allows a daughter who married after that date to get her due share adopted a more radical course by ab family property altogether. ‘The 2005 Amendment Ai now co-exist. But if there is any repugnancy or law, then that will be overtaken. The Union Aci Devolution of thterest in Coparcenary Property According to Sec. 6(1), H.S. Act, 1956, on and from the commencement indu Succession Act (Amendment) Act, 2008, in a joint Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener 9 tis noteworthythat while in Kerala, the joint family concept and the pious biigaion of the son to pay his fathers debis were abolished: the other four st both, additional resent Ame ination of the Andhra and th teeta family and introduces daughters as coparceners but abolishes the plows bigation of the,son to pay the debts of his father. See, P. Pradhan Saxena, Family Law il, 2" ed., p, 338 (2007). Hindu Joint Family and Coparcenary 15 (@)_by birth become a coparcener in her ow her marital stat oo) ights in the coparcenary property as she would hhad been a son; ©) * coparcenary property as that of a son; (@)_and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener. Daughter as Coparcener/Karta ‘coparcenary property has been conferred in favour of a daughter as well. This radical change has fundamentally altered the character of a 1e daughters have been made Mitakshara coparcenary. No coparceners in the Mitakshara rights as sons to shares, been brought to an end, as her the same as that of a son. Further, daughters would not only be empowered to form a ‘be a Karta, throw her self-acquired earnings into the joint family fund, something that was not possible before the amendment. The rule that females cannot form or start a joint family on their own but can continue it even on the death of a male member in the family but provided they have the capacity to add a male member to it by birth or through adoption, stands abrogated now.!© After the 2005 Amendment, ‘thus, a ‘daughter’, like a san, can not only continue a joint family, but also form one with her father and brothers. It may be noted that the daughters have been made coparceners imespective of their marital status. Thus, after the marriage of a daughter, 10. See, P. Pradhan Saxena, Family Law il, ed.,p. 338 (2007).vey Aradoud wr susuguig Buowre Surerasd souersoyus Jo worsks ywauyured ue Ayjenba sapus8 spemor sdars 1wewodui, unb axe roy uorssaoong npuly ay) 01 siuauApuoUrE 12921 HL, sysewsay Suypnjou0g | Kreusasedoo Jo syuaplous oiseq ayy Jo auo st diyssoarains pue Aueusa.edoo Jo stu ‘29g 01 Buspuoo9e os Wud} 24 Jo ash ay WO 1e Aide 104 pjnom diysiontans ws ayy ‘Capuaaiedoo ereysye ye Suinoy ‘Soup purr afew Aue yoge usaq sey diysioniains Jo autsi20p 2 ua sem TOY UOISse0ong NPUIEY BY Woy “9SEI UI PaIN|IP Jom na ay, Kuadord axp aye pinoo fesareyjoo 2yew omy pue paridée /AIAINS Jo ULRDOp up “Yeap a4 UO Ayo PUe “af 24 JO 1894 941105 ‘IY 01 Uo Ploy Or panyuuiad sem MOpIM s,souadsedoD 24 2194N “LE6} JO DW ay Xq Payrpour ys1y sem aT SIL “siWapuadap epeUray siy 40} paurewal Buuyiou pue sieusoredoo Su asosayut siy sauaauedioa v Jo ypeap ay) Uo rey Sayfduut diysiOALAINS “Sap iouapiedos 2you v uays — K1euaazedoo Jo swuapiou! Arewitid 4p JO ‘uo | diysioarains Jo stuaprout ay SaysHOgE ‘snu “OV SOOT PUL “diysioniains Aq 10u pue 19 sty) Japun °9q 609 a4 se “UoISsa0aNs a1esoiut 40 Krewuawrerser £q 9AIOA—P IES ayn £q pauiano8 Aiuiey npurpy 1stol ¥ Jo Auadoud, 3p ‘so0z ‘DV (wuawpuauy) “V's'H IP MPUIH] & aI9Ys “9SGI WOW “SH “(1)9 "2A5 01 Buipiony dyyssonyains yo auy20g Jo wonoay a Kseusssedog pue fiweg usor npUIH. {JO 1ustgDL:OWIUIOD » eve'dpr th ‘pia zt ‘Bel-9t 8d "DY “th 1°99 ‘9snoy Aqrurey ur douopisas Jo mys ‘Spury si Jo mo aoueuanureu ayy ‘OURS 2x 9q 01 onuUO Auado1d Ayres quiof au sano siyse Toy] “Twoupuoure atp az0joq poois ue se se] ures aup 0} J20"qns ase ‘YoUsoxedoo v 04 afeyureus Ka Ayre WU Jo Staquiaut awoaaq oy asotp pue Auadosd Arousaredoo ayy UL je ‘hq wus v ssossod siarsis ‘SianySnep “a Ajruiey ayn ur wioq axe oYM ‘sojowag “siousoredoo aip 0} aBeurew Aq Kurs qulof simp Jo.stoquiout ‘uioo9q 04% asoup ‘Kiptio9as pu If UL Wuo0g axe OY “uO are 2 re WHOL at JaAO SIYBLS soy a} uaantaq parwaso u9aq Sey uaoredoa you are siauaoredoo f npulpy B Jo siaquiaus au099q ‘24g “Joquou Isours0rtOs ‘ayy 9q 01 suaddey ays 3 pur wrol ry ayy 12yM EE oWOD>q ‘wep speuiay © “uOLUpUOUIE axp Joye THY Payou aq soyLINy Ae I] tstsuaaredos 494 ose Inq sa1ySNep ay {uo yOu 199 Areusouedos) 001 Aurey nur sa0au aie Aroussvedo9 v Jo siaquro ayy fe asne99q Suey "pur 1wof jo soquious se Jom se iousoredoo v 9q 0} anunuOD jm 245 = mer kywes st18 Family Law - 11 MITAKSHARA v DAYABHAGA SCHOOL Hindu law has two main schools: the Mitakshara school and Dayabhaga school. The Mitakshara ( work’) is a commentary on code of Yajnavalkya and is written by thwar. The Dayabhaga igest ofall the codes and is written by Jimutavahana, The Mitakshy orthodox school, whereas the Dayabhaga is a reformist school of lu law. takshara is the authority for the whole of India except parts of Punjab and Bengal. In Bengal taksh with Dayabhaga of paramo Dayabhaga is also referred to Mitakshara law, on points on Even Mitakshara was subj Where a Hindu f Mitakshara law prevail to be governed by the ara the family has abandoned the law of the Maharashtra) and adopted the law of the ttled. Thus, the Hindu law is not a lex loci ic. (Acts). The Hindu Succession Act, between the two schools and has Provided for a uniform law relating to succession of Hindus. Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools differ on aspects:!4 ——_—__ "4. Distinguish between a Mitakshara and a Dayabhaga Coparcenary. {0.U-2010) Hindu Joint Family and Coparcenary 9 (Under Mitakshara, the basis for the law of inheritance is the Principle of propinquity ie. the nearness in blood relationship or consanguinity of blood. This is purely a secular principle and ‘means that sons and daughters should inherit equally as they are equally nearer to the deceased parent. However, agnates are preferred over cognates. Under Dayabhaga, the law of succession is based on religious efficacy or spiritual benefits (offering of ot Pindadan) and therefore ® person who confers more religious benefit on the deceased is preferred. It therefore rejects the preference of agnates to cognates. (i) With respect to joint family under Mitakshara, the son, grandson, and great grandson have a right by birth in the joint family Property having an equal interest with the father. Under Dayabhaga, the son or and the father can dispose of fier his death, prop lifetime of itakshara. law, the coparceners have community of t and unity ofpossession but their interest in the property fluctuates. Under the Dayabhaga law, cop: have specified and ascertained shares in the JEP. The int lo not fluctuate but the coparceners have a unity of po: (iv) While under the Mitakshara system, the brothers and even collaterals so long as they are joint do not have a right tc dispose of their shares, under the Dayabhaga system, the brothers/collaterals have such right. (¥) Under Mitakshara, the doctrine of survivorship applies and ot the death of a coparcener his share is taken by the survivin oparceners. Under Dayabhaga, in the event of a coparcene dying issueless, his widow has a right to succeed to his shan and to enforce a partition on her account.!5pur “ToyssOuT afeU UOWILIOD B WOYS papLioasep Xijeout| suostod Jo SISOS (Me EILYSHEWY.O1 PUR wopea4D) smvIg KyuEA IUFOr Jo uO) you are joasatp svoquiou losoe~nval chute} ywof & aimpsuod siaisis Popp nO VAN Pamewun om.ueo ZAnuey ou Ut saqureLL eeW2} aU) KUO Jo 2ouejsul ayy ye senunuco Awe} of UeD suoHEMS YUM JepU (2) 9f0s Jo spurl ayy Us Auodosd soiiaym sea anssy at, joozedoo BuIAIAINS 9105 94) Sem UOS a4p ‘SKILL OYTOU! SI, “aja sty “Uos a1p Jo parsisuoo Ayurey UtOL ay “2SeO SIP U] © aynyjsuco (pewsewun) s9ISIS pue JeYyIOIG & oui 104 Ut Burn “Vos pue Puegsny J04 YIM PUN MpUIH 27 ANH JO EH se Buoje YewGnep powew e ~ saprrou Anwey wok e sououM (P) ~ ‘pakey aq pinoo s9uaaaedoo Buyaraans ajos Jo spuey ayp uy Xyz0dou] (eee6-9'791 zhreusasedoo out (cry “wos seet uN) Woy, payeuluijo AqeIelWo9 2q 4 pInoM seduE}suINKD 14M NVAVEYNINXW? +] sepun csoueoredoo e ouwiooeg euminy ut Jen@ ou Ueo ennebou mvaawoo 4 Xvi SOON! 40 “HWWOD =35¥9 omravs] 94) U8} semsue snk 41 ZAWM OS JI Puy LJBUEDIEd0D & 6S S| “Auodoud 48 Aa gS uospuei6 yeas6 yeas6 sy poyull St AH Jo adaou09 aup ‘Kuzadoud Ajpurey wok suo pur § Aa gS UospuelS 1e=i6 Sy };S pUE gS suOspuEI® siy “2G pue ,@ sieiybnep siy ‘2S Pue ,S SUOS SIY ‘oMTES Un *H =:Bumoyo} 4) Jo sisisuoo Awuey wo! exeUsENN Y (2) '9q 01 paunsaid st “ay ‘npuryy Alaa yeu parou aq Aeur I “wou! Jo axvys 9812] {e6-9'101 ‘sueyjog Om} Jo SMOPYMA (1) ‘ym pue puegsn () ~:Aquse} qwYol © eymypSUDD BUONO} OM JOON ouIWEX (q) ) ‘yownowdays pue mopyn “vos sty () saz6-9791 ‘mepurseryBnep pue vos siy 40504 fa paniains s1 pue exeusyeuW Aa powero6 si y # Paxe) oq Pinoys seqiedosd ayy MoH “sway S14 Jo pueY auf Ur Sequedoxd ‘avonueu anoge aun xe} 01 1ueM saquOLANe xe} au ~sanadoud ‘ajeiedes pue jesnssoue pulyoa GuMes| Z661 Ul SaIP v (e) LD SNOILSAND WAHLUNA xe1 J asodind ayy 10 ‘saxaMoy{ “siaiysnep paleWUN pur sonrm | emer Auwes « iz | kreuessedoa pue Aywes autor npulHfamily may consist of a single male member and his daughters and there is nothing in the scheme of the Wealth Tax Act to suggest that a HUF as assessable unit must consist of the Hindu law by the expressions Hindu family” and “coparcenary” (consisting of male coparcener has wider powers to dea subject to rights of female members e.g. expenses, adoption by widow, etc. ‘The court noted that a large tax exemption is allowed in the case of HUF. The more liberal allowance is presumably given because the whole income of the family would not go to ‘one individual, but, a small portion only for each member. Also, where there is only one male member, then in that case, the maintenance of the female members might absorb a large share of income. Comments ~ There can be joint family consisting of a single male coparcener and a widow of coparcener. There can also be a joint family where there are only widows. The rule is “that even on the death of sole surviving coparcener, the joint family does not come to an end so long as it is in law (ie. adoption) to-add a Ramachandra AIR 1970 SC 343). intenance, marriage Hindu Joint Family and Coparcenary B According to a learned Joint family property, almost, as his separate property. As long as another male member does not come into existence, it assumes the character of self-acquired property, sul rights of maintenance of fémale members. But for of tax such a family will be called ‘undivided ‘family’.] Decision of the case in question (In view of the law discussed above, a joint family consisting of son, widow and stepmother isa joint Hindu all ancestral property in the hands of as wi family can never consist of single male or v Veerappa Chettiar AIR. 1970 SC 240} ‘Thus a family consisting of son’and his wife be a joint family. The I be taxed as HUF. be taxed as the property of an individial (as the son will be an absolute owner of such Property). A coparcenary consists of father, son, son’s son, son's son’s son (i.e. father and his three male lineal descendants). The ‘rule so long last holder 6 living lineal male ancestor), one will be a coparcener. Thus, coparcenary extends to three degrees below the last holder (The four degrees is inclusive of last holder).se (zl ‘up JO apts asnesaq [paronuns ‘youjoug fo ajoun yewsored/jeusorew wous Auadosd syo4 ny “2Hei494 paronsysqo st sayreypuesd yeai8 J soypeypuess “oyrey ayy Kyadorg s8eiay ‘mn ‘Kuradoag “eadondanyony iy se 11 ploy 24 suonejal satplo spreBas se Ing (ISaLaIUL 31 y Jo aouaISIxa ayy asmesaq) tue aumboe wos s,uos s,uos pue vos ‘atop pypunquosdo payed St Wil or 304Sty Seaiop sony Siipeeoxe you ‘ioysaau ayeul yap e WON} afew mpULHL ® Aq peruoyy sonodosd ity ,'28eu9y payonunsqoun, st Auedord yensoouy | “(@8euay paron.sqo) p&op bypuvguesdos pue (aBe\a4 poronnisqoun) Pep vypuoguoado :speop{ bat sopun Ajureur Auadosd soytssejo JooUss BIEYSHEHN, ALL ‘@FeeH poynnsqoun pue peronasgo (1) AINAAOUd AO NOLLVOLISSVIO Mey npury uy Ayodorg z “sioqnoug pure Jomvey s24 YA avo Woy oste Inq ‘KjpuREZ MIO! anunuoa Afuo you ue pure s9uaaredoo v st ‘uos v ayy“ 20148NUp, B ‘TBY woTssao0Ng MpUITY amp Or maIPUaUIY SoZ ayP A9yR ‘Iau “Auurey oy 0} Joquiow sew & Suippe Aq oF ‘2y) ayeway payewun we pares ndopy npully ay “Papua soues B} OY U} Ya] Damysem SiAySNep 40 sayYySnEp ey ‘sry, 194 Ie] 194 0} JqUaUI B pe o} Kyoedea ap payoe| (paren) Jorysnep e ‘9s61 aojaq reMP parou aq eur a Aqnuer Mop © wo} pinod siayyBneq parsseMUA OME (9) a 09 OF wwasaid siaquiowl omy are a1a1p sé) woo (paLLTewun) JaIsIs pue JaKpON Y 109 94 UO WHO Ap] KeU saIyinep paw S108 MoU oys se) stuazEd Jay Jo 2i9 wou pepnpes 98 “oftjuou. soy saye “ene Y. (P) vbr Woe Ol (EL81) ATI HH YsoUPD A yroUDsysi4 o4OHY] YORDBL1P 2) pooud ous ou 2p Stosouy appa Sony a WoWOUL re ake surewiai 4] Jp Areuaosedoo: 9 a 0p oj 2 (eagoq pM) $s (asiaq pooses) s 8 Gama) aid 3s |S C=peH sep u W- meq Aweg vz26 Family Law - it the unobstructed heritage devolves by survivorship and obstructed heritage by inheritance (succession). In the former case, relatives take a vested interest in the Property by birth. In the 4atter right to it arises forthe first time on the death of the owner they have a bare chance of succession to the property, contingent upon their surviving the owner, : However, in some cases, obstructed heritage passes by survivorship £8 TWO oF more sons, grandsons and great grandsons succeeding ay felts to the separate property of their paternal ancestor take as joint tenants with survivorship rights, () Joint Family Property and Separ According to the Hindu law, the property namely:- (1) Joint family property or co () JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY (COPARCENARY PROPERTY) every coparcener has a joint cant deint possession, It devolves by survivorship (interest by ~ Pith), not by succession.! The coparceners are in fact defined 10 a ‘+ What is meant by ‘coparoanary property under Mitakshara law? Discuss ts importance, (cise Property in Hindu Law 2D reference to JFP as a narrow body of those specific members of HJF who acquires by birth an interest in JFP. It may be noted that although the His Coparcenary are two distinct concept Coparcenary Property are Synonymous ‘amily and Hindu ly Property and ‘Types/Sources of Joint Family Property ‘The Hindu Joint Family Property includes:~ (1) All ancestral property. Property acquired Doctrine of Acc Property acquired at the cost of ancestral property (Doctrine of Detriment), aid/assistance of ancestral property fro (including maternal grandfather) is not ancestral property 's the separate property of the person inheriting it [Me Hus v Kisheva (1937) ALL 655] (See under the Questions section). 2 Define the concept of ‘ancestral property’ under Mitakshara law and discuss. its attributes, 1 omen‘qnutey ayp Jo sioquiaus axp 1yausq oy uoRuayuy as0U area ‘Kuadosd ayesedas Suypoay aun sopun 22g) os A “éuofloud Sqr wuzof 29 pino4s “0 ip uowiunap Jo oui20p yp jujof jo yno paoueuyy sea Yoyo 9 ‘vo pe UIY) ouloy 0 poufoy uy ‘huedosd a Ssngjonu Kqyumey yujof ou st 40K 2104) ua sosouny) Keradoud fuse) wo | & wey npUIH UL Ayedord f 01 play aq you pines pasinboe os Auzdoud YeMN play SEA \duro-aid ayp. yeu panoid 10u sem 5 ESE PEW LOI WIV 79gNS A us Ruadoud yons Jo owoou at vate Aaetoyousg 2tp pur sounboe ‘in ou uodn Bupuadop sausen uonrdunsasd ox ‘snuLL dat ot wondwnsasd ou st azoyi ‘aquiow afeway ayn Jo oureu OKA Ut 4q paseypund st Auadoad ayy 104A “(SIZ Wed ELE WIV PApUEYoUEy A domaysoapoyy) fuadosd fyures auto! akp aiminstod 10u jTIM Uos sty 909 seq ,uona1908, uLia, a4p 919} ~ UoHaUDDy Jo auIN}20q (Z) “(uonsas suonsoni ‘ay ABPUN $6 IS ES6I ULV PYIUDTRIMpY A worjoyo0UNLp 208) (Kuadord sresedas sty se ou pure) Auadosd Ky49doad Y} (gost 9s 2002 ulv) HONIS INVMINM A HONIS NVHMVW :35¥9 DMIaVE] Ausdoig yuey yujor Pujpsefos voprduinsoug ey 0809 1 SuONSaNd aif 4apUN 2ag — suoND.ounWeL pun KuDIDE .( uonoas uonsand) ap s9pun 29g ~ Sujuioay fo suo ( uno; euraudng amp ‘(cor DS 096! sau “[LLE ULL 19 (961) Ang arog fo aqtonuor n suysqoyo4e2 se Ayadosd ayp da0y 01 pue os op Sty JO SroquraU! atp Jo 1you9q yp JO ayy Areusaredos atp Woy 2A12001 ims eur Areuosaredoo ¥ Jo Joquiow w “Sn 3 ay) trys sKouowt xp | “(881 FV 6961 UIV Aing 291g fo sajomU0y ay A jjuodo.py) woxyaisty pausea wnoWe etf 40 WO Jo sa}oeey9 al SULLUIaIEp PITOM 342U2q UMO Sty 404 Ten} ‘ayy q 1 Jo asn ayy-pue wants sem ouou! Tey YOIyNS YI yt ssojaypouou ‘Aurey ayy or wow © Buryeads 2uDUf “aug [PNPIAIPUL sou) 40} ArEUBDIedOD amp JO loqluaut 01 paouape aie spur ‘yy You st eM Ing “Ayurey ruTof yp 01 waULNP ‘auesnsul agile Jo uNuDLd Jo yWaUIAEd 40} pos axe spurs “gse9 Kana ut doqjod aoubansur fo sryfauag (01) & me7 npurH ut Aytodosd asyauaypo ploy 01 se ‘uadoud sayjoud sua pue ssoutsng ut Auodoxd yons J sguaozedoo auf Jt u9Ad JEU ples HNO amp “(ZZ PRN S61 ATV) puroyuag, » ouiny.y Uj “pauses Kouow 8} pares avout, pure} au1 Jo sionpoud yeanyeu ayp asoys Kaun se Yl. pue AAsnpul ‘umo sit Jo yjnsau oy) Yon se a1 suoNsINboe ay) asneaog sauaozedoo au Jo Auadoid ayesedas 0q {14 Auadosd 40 aw0su! ons ‘snjdins jo yno paseyaind s1 Auadosd fue 30 ‘soueuqureul raye surewias awooul snyduns awios 5] - aououajuou {tof saquau p 01 panoye duadoud Kqyunf nyo ay fo wort (6) srauzoredos ain jo Auodoud avesedas aynynsuos Auodoud Ayurey qujof axp Jo pre axp ynoyptar ‘sBuuswa yong - wonaxa-fias &q sBunuiva 40 sBuusoa ayoivdag (8) ‘Ruodoad ayeredas s.iousaiedoo 29 jI}8 awoou yons gum pauinboe Auiadoud 40 ~ civadoud arosodes ay) wouf awoouy (1) ‘Auadosd rey yuof se uu 0} wansd Kjpeloads uoag sey 1 ssoyun aayuess {uaUUuDA0D aX 8 moun (9) ‘dope 04 samod sey oyM 90UaISIKO UL MOPI ou st atau uaym ‘sousnsedoo Suarains ojos w Aq prey Ausdosg (5) ~ ‘uonned ‘uo ansst afew ou sey om sausaredoo ¥ Aq pauteigo Auadorg (p) “oy MEP-UL-UOS “e-ULLaRyBMEP ‘uonySnep “2g ‘uos sty oy soupy B q uOHOAe YBnoup apeur Auiadoid a1qeaot s20ue jo uomuod [ews © Jo YIN (£) “furadoud ayeredas siy se 1 243 I! UOS ayp JENN spudrUL JUNE ‘yp Jt Suos sty or sayy Aq Auadoud pasnboe-jJ9s sty Jo YIN (Z) -roupey s.soupey s224%6) ue soupy s.s0upey “iaupey sty ueyp Jomo wosied e Woy MpUIH B &q poruoyut Kuzodoud “a1 aBeuay poronaisqo se paruayut Kuadord (1) —sioumnboe ayy Jo Auzodoud ayesedas aup st soa Surmoyjoy axp uy paumnboe Kuadosd Ayadoig oyesedas yo soosn0s MW mer Ayes eFamily Law - 11 Joint Hindu Family, and, who is required to prove the nature of property whether it is joint Hindu Family property or self- acquired property. thas been pleaded that there was no evidence whatsoever to show that the aforesaid property had been purchased from the income of the joint family so as to give it the character of a Joint Hindu Family property and that the onus which lay on the defendant asthe propounder ofthe joint family, as envisaged by the judgment of this Court in D.S. Lakshmaiah"v-[, Balasubramanyam (2003) 10 SCC 310, had clearly not been discharged. It has, further, been argued that the finding of the High Court that a decree for 11 Marlas of land could not.be granted as this land had been purchased by Dula Singh during his life time and had passed on to his sons by succession after his death in 1966 was therefore Joint Hindu Family property in Property Purchased in the name of a member of a family had ipso-facto the character of Joint Hindu Family property unless it could be shown that the family possessed a nucleus for the purchase of the same, Tt has, further, been pleaded that the findi Court that the 11 Marlas purchased by name which devolved on his sons after his death in 1966 too had the character of Joint Hindu Family property was also an ‘erroneous assumption in the light of the judgment of this Court in Commr. of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567, in which it has been held that there could be no presumption the property purchased by a father fell to his son by inheritance it was deemed to be in his. position as a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. In DS. Lakshmaiah case, it had been observed that a Property could not be presumed to be a Joint Hindu Family Property merely because of the existence of a Joint Hindu Family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is 8 joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting roves that-there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there Would be presumption of the Property in Hindu Law 35 i joint and the onus would shift on the person 10 be self-acquired property to prove that he property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was le. ‘The cour, in the present case, held: The High Court has also rightly observed that there was no presumption that the Property owned by the members of the joint Hindu Family could a fortiori be same character and to hed by the propounder income was available and that the said property had been purchased from the said nucleus and that the burden to prove such a situation lay on the party, Who so asserted it. The ratio of K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer case able to the facts of the present case. ingh from his income as an employee of the Railways and it was therefore his self-acquired property. Such a property falling torhis sons by succession could not be said to be the property of the Joint Hindu Family, Property held by a Sole~Gurviving Coparcener Leapina Case: SMT. DIPO v WASSAN SINGH (AIR 1983 Sc 846) [The property held by a sole surviving coparcener may constitute his ‘separate property’ and on his death it will devolve by succession ‘on his heirs, and any custom giving preference to collateral would be void. The character of the property varies, depending upon who the claimant is.) In this case, two brothers inherited the property from their father. A partition took place between them. One brother *X° had a daughter and a son. His son took the X’s properties by survivorship on X’s death, but the son died without leaving any male descendants, Therefore, his sister (X's daughter) the properties by succession. However, the sons of other “Y" raised a dispute that they were the rightful owners of the X°s property. They contended that the properties in the hands of X’s son were ancestral property and in Puniab. a femalemy 2yeu uy Jorseoue ofeur sty Wo¥y Joupey 241 01 Buupuoasap Avrodaud St apuney Sy MUM ApUIO! yso.oqut saxMboe us e YorUM uF Ayadosd sAes os[@ 17-1 ~ | WINNORId BIBYSHEUY “yUIG ysoz2quT ue axinboe jouyeo uosiad w pu aBeyay poronssqo st ‘sourey s,20uNKy S.J04N8) ur soupy s.ioupey ‘somes ayy ue Joyo “uosied Aue wo poILoyul Auadoid ‘exeysyeny op sopup, “yung Aq 9 ur ysazaqur ue auinboe sy oya{ uosiad at Jo Suospuei8 yeai8 pue suospues8 ‘Suos axp TEIN st “Ke ‘eeySyeHW 0} Burpiodde “Guadoud poursaoun axp Jo amyoay [UHUSSD a4, Adufespuesy jeuszeIy wWo4y paysayuy Apadosg yo samen (1) '¥ (96-19'7 ‘se/ee26~0'TOll600z/8002-"N'a i epeecons 24 HN “sensedoid pres ou) ye ut areys ~~ siey sly spuewep pue LoMed syees Yseyang ‘uos SiH tuonued uo panjeoss aseys © (n) ‘06st ut weep sone! oun Uo soUNe; siy Woy parseyL! oy YoIUM YEU e xp rey paasasqo 1A 29 plnox TeraTE}IO9 07 aouarayaud BuIAts woIsno Sly Uo uorssaaans £q aAjonap [IMA KLeaP Sty UO ue Auadosd ovesedas sty omynsuco eur Jousosedoo Buyatains 2f0s © Aq play Auadoud yp yup pjay ynod auioudng 24, MW meq Ayes8 Family Law - 1 Leave Case: MD. HUSAIN KHAN v BABU KISHVA NANDAN SAHAI (AIR 1937 PC 233) [Property inherited from the maternal grandfather cannot be said to be ancestral. The ‘ancestral estate’ in which under the Hindu law, a son acqui father an interest by birth, ‘must be confined to the property descended to the father from his In execution of a decree for money obtained by a creditor against Bindheshri Prasad, the said property was sold ‘ownership in the property. The validity of the Will Ganesh is challenged by the appellant on the testator had no authority to jointly with his father an interest by birth, the property descended to the father frot Property in Hindu Law EF ‘The court further observed: “The primary reason for this is the Hindu society was patriarchal in nature which means that for mother’s father (maternal grandfather) the primary heit would be his son and hence, any inheritance by the daughter's ‘son would be obstructed heritage.” Thus, estate inherited from maternal grandfather i Im the present case, the estate which was inherited by Ganesh Prasad from his maternal grandfather cannot in thei ¢ in her favour came into operation and te owner of the property; and the sale of that property in execution proceedings against her husband could not adversely affect her title.) In Yenkayamma v Yenkatanarayanamma (1902) 25 Mad 678, a wrongly decided case, two brothers, members of family, inherited certain Properties from their matema-grand-father. One of them died without a male issue and his widow claimed his share by inheritan: other ‘brother claimed it by survivorship. The Privy C family property and IR 1958 SC 241), the Supreme Court yy a person from his maternal grandfather is descendants.1 wos-20u0p ayy Yay? ‘uoREed Jo Jo wed posBoyt we yng YIS'e YOU SEA YI 5 Tey) UMOYS S| 1 JF ‘SMU, “SOOUESUIMOHD ms axn pue poop aup Jo ensue] omy WOH, 7 0g 01s} wonUaqU axp waK ‘Azeofo UOHUONUL Sty passaxdo you sey Jaynes ox 2569 UI “POOP 1 jo suuay ou wou pasouped aq 01 Sf wopmanu SUL, Cb) say a {Jo wonusnus axp uodn spuadap Aqyewtd uonsonb ‘uy ‘snyy, “€ysuRy Jo YouBsq sty Jo aysUEq eu 40} 2q prmom YES aM 10 “yasusty 40y AfaassnIoxs 1 aye) pinom souop Toy) Layo ‘YIR e SOYeUE ‘y) uayn cjsseudxa apinoud o} wayedwoo ounb, Sf uouey 1exy 2ouanbasu0a Aressad—u B SE MOILOS sur 1 tiadoud pasinboe-sjas sty 4940 uonssodsip Jo) zomod ayajduioo sey soyyey BIEUSAEH | ayeyse 1 ‘Aue ynowim ayeisa Jo no soyyey & Aq aq pinoo axoyp yeyr Aes oF Uor yuo ayqedyed & ‘aq plnom af 40j “=yUOWILIAD {WEB eqn Sutznbas se peas aq ouNRD Bz UMH!OeLd tu suorsinoid “uondaoxo ue srosi Buleg yes §.10uR85 p re “uommed wous yduroxo 2q rouueo Auanbasuoo pue 3 “jeyso s soupy 0p wrousap mnoupias uos £q pauinbow bow -{195, Jo wo se ajqued play 24 papuayuos sem yf “uontued oxy woyy ydwoxa pparojoop sey pue ‘KroBoreo ayeredas e Jopun 8 s.somey ayn paseld sey ereysyenN amp ‘oN (Z) ‘wo ainjosqe ue sey ay ‘Kuedosd ayesedas 1 Sone at) UDA, “TuOLUBIS AE9A St BIUSYENIN Jo ¥'S "82 wINHoeId UE siMoo YOUN “sOUTES yo snoney yBnonp paureigo, uoIssaidxa au, “12H me npurH ut Kysodosd be197 eyuesanyy A uejeyoounsy ul passnosip se me] Jo se wosiad sayjo ue uo pomoyseq anny pino> 94 youu ua uo snoney w sonsoq o} 2500yD L0KRE SIH asmea0q ing ‘yBts fea Ate say 10 uos st 24 as10009 jou Hf Sontaoed 24 “Y!B sanqooor uostad © U2qA\ (1) soup Prey nog ai, 24Hej axp Jo uoRUDIUL 241 uodn spuodop Ayureud tuonsonb aio} Jomsue ayp yeu pres ‘stnoc 81H ay Jo SUOISISaP noun otf PU SIxa} atp Suuapisuos Jaye “nog auaudns OM At Bueyoxs “YIS Jo siamod YIM PUB si pouonuatu ‘sonradoud ayn Kol 0} fe Jo snajanti ou wos pasinboe [rsatoquy ayeugpso-o9 a1mmboe pynon suos 14 Y>E spuvy ayy ut Cuadoad yeaysaoue ue ues ‘s2oueysunoayo je 49pUn pure {ytessaa0u ysnut wos, 0 payS 40 paqreanboq Apredoad yons {eq jog 0} ajqissod you sy "Me Jo WoHIsod PayHHas sy) JO MALA UY -sa19q sty asBuowe opnguasip jenboun ue uasa ayeur wey pue ‘expos yo juauNLNIaP ‘q) 0} su0s tito sy Jo au0 0} Aysadoud yans Jo yf & ayeu UD 234] nq suos sq Jo douasznaue9 aq} noua ssBuENS wo} Ayodord ppasgnbae-s2s si 1)28 0) juaiadwioa fyuo you s} Z9qFR) BAEYSHEHTA] (cep 95 £S6T Uv) eVHINVORUAW A WYTVHOVNAUY :s¥9 oMava] gang Ka ay uy soso Uw UTED UOS 5,9 wD #81 UoREONb 24, isan ‘yous fysnoingo AoE ayi ‘q_ pue ¢f Jo woIsnjoxa amp 01 2 0} Auzadoud ayesedas sty Jo soyeul “q] pue 2 “q ~ Suos samy sey ou J TEMP payou aq eu 1 W- mey Auwed Jud vo e10U VOUS © SUNK °E42 Family Law - 11 property as joi hand, if the father ex the deed that the son in the present case, the Will expressly vests son with absolute rights (of alienation), reference is made to son's son, Thus he (father) did not intend that the property should be taken by son as ancestral Property. (©) Thus, a property gifted by father to his son could ‘not become ancestral property in the hands of donee simply by reason of the fact that the donee 80t it from his father as ancestor. Theory of equal ‘ownership is not applicable to the father’s gifts, as father has a predominant interest in his selfacquired property.) Nature of Property Inherited from Father under Hindu Succession Act, 19565 a 4 Ke father ofa JHF dis in 1950 beueatng by 2 wi is separate 10s tw sons (St and $2) athe alow ae nae wreny “My two sons aforesaid who are now lve, together wth all the sons whe may be bom ome hreater, shat deal my gropertas hig ene oe, Shares as there be sons and each son would a oe anes 3,08 Napa be pay aan teu te vl ois and es is Son, S3,chalenges the vay ofthe git conden ar Doqeathea i St by Xs anal Dest oe nay (het: 83 can chatenge the git 5. Dias the charac of tho rperty tata son inher fom he fer {956 What ar he jul deveomets nth vega Woot ot eat ‘nner the propery seh ote aon under a eaowe ee tou {ote: For testamentary disposition (Le. under a Wil) see Arun v ote Fa Will) see Arunachotem Property in Hindu Law a Leapina Case: CWT v CHANDER SENS (AIR 1986 Sc 1753) (The son inheriting the separate property from his father, grandfather or great grandfather, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would take it as his exclusive or absolute property, with no right of his male descendants over it. the property as the Karta of his branch, capacity as the son of the intestate, and n of his male come/asset which a tate (without making a separate property of ’be assessed as income of HUF of son income. ; comprised the father, his son and grandsons. A partial was effected and the father and the son carried on their respective businesses. On father’s g “29g Jo suotstaoad ssazdxa aun pure (2043801 Sty se ay soe 94 °g "sm saqrey sty wous Auadoud syoyUE npUtEL 1 way ‘Silay Jo }25 Mau e paonPOsUL sey OY "SH OU, _uospuesd ai, pur <,uospuesd, ‘,uos, 30u pu *uos paseacapaid v Jo wos paseasapaid {Jo os, pue *,uos paseasapaid w Jo uos, ‘,uos, Uo'ssasdxe at [pourejuoo se ‘ae nur v Jo Kuadoud ayesedas ay1 01 uorssaoons ayeisaul Jo auioyos ay JopuN rey punos UNO> oyL ‘uonpred © aos0yua ua 2q osfe pinom puE HUI Yq u2aq sey womisod 12ip ng -ddf, Se 1 s9ye 94 ‘Sus UMO Sty SIA-R-SIA ‘You siY wos Kuddosd oyesedas siLioyUE OS ‘vaya Ye] NpUTE TEUONIPEN aup sOpUN :Parsasqo UNOS ay, ‘maya Aresjuoo e Sayer unoD, BIH wexeInD Inq ‘uos amp Jo Auadoud ayesedas se Auadoid yons ploy suno> YBIH Ysepesd TAypUY puE seIPEW “ZN “peqeyey req) patou unoy xedy ayy, “Auadosd Areuaosedoo WW me Aywes,4% Family Law - I ‘Sen and said that the heirs to a Hindu male include a son and son of a predeceased son and not son of a living son who is 4an heir otherwise it would mean giving a right by birth to the son in the father’s property and also the grandfather's property. In Makhan Singh v Kulwant Singh (AIR 2007 SC 1808), had purchased eleven marlas of land and constructed ing thereon from the savings as an employee of the Railways. On the is four sons inherited this the separate property ofeach perty qua their sons? The court ited by the sons would be their wt be said to be the joint family separate property. (iv) Nature of Property obtained on Partition When a coparcener partito of roperty and g A and his sons B and C and if they p: each will be his separate the properties obtained by ati sons B and C have no int But the moment any one of them gets a P. This will be so even if A gets anothe ® person partitions from the joint family and ho has not partitioned from that person interest in such share of property. Decision of the Case in Question () The house which Nishand inherited from his mate ‘grandfathet/or brother is his separate property. Subhash can't ~ ~__ Claim: partition of it as he has no interest in it by birth, Gi) The shop which Nishant got under a gift/Will ror is not necessarily ancestral property in his hands. If of the grantor was to riake it ancestral property then Subhash can claim partition in the shop. ‘ : 9% td. 128, Property in Hindu Law a7 The flat which Nishant inherited from his father can only be his separate property, thus, Subhash cannot claim partition in this flat (CWT v Chandra Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753) (iv) The share which, Nishant received on partition continues to be JFP as regards his son Subhash and thus Subhash can claim Partiti 2 Balram was possessed of property comprising of agricultural land which he inherited from his father in 1955, a shop in Kamla Nagar inherited by his wife from her father and Rs. 4,00.000 which his separated patemal uncle sent from Aica His only son claims half share in above-mentioned properties Decide. ILC. 95) A2 See Al (Under the old Hindu law (before the passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956), when a son roperty from his father vis-a-vis his own son, he takes it as joint family father, from The shop which Balram ii his separate Balram got from his separated paternal separate property and his son cannot claim 3A Hindu father ‘A’ died in 2006, survived by his widow W, one ‘son $ and a daughter D. S had two children SS and SD. Before his death, ‘A’ had executed a bequeathed three flats (of similar value) that constituted his Separate property in favour of W, $ and D. Two days prior to his death, ‘A’ had purchased a farm house using his own money with respect to which no Will was executed. On his death, his children and widow took possession of the flats individually and of the farm house collectively. SS filed a suit {for partition against S, (0.2011)(99% “PEW 9961 WIV Bars Jo mo pouioddns 40 paul upaqnsvroyua,) ru Sway Kyu 0 parredunt wed ur 10 ajoyss ut ‘ua9q Suraey Suu siy {Jo Woseas Kq fjarow rauinboe ayy so Kuadoud arezedas pue 2alsnyoxo eu 2942 10U ploy 9q [eYs Sure] JO Sule ou we] NpUIEY Jo worreyeidzeIU! 430 dyna ‘worsno Aue SuIpuRrsyiIMION, sales 19Y at JO ¢ “99g “eanoadsoud se [om 58 aanpadsonas st oy ayy ‘smu “Buyuseay Yons Jo ynse1 AxeUIpIOENXe 40 {sohpio a4p 9q wontsinbse yons soyry%e 40 “oY aya Jo ywauidduouIW0D Auadosd yo uonssinbor @ 9s 0) z 298] up) ansind 0} uosia 40 upy Arona se ,urureny, “pur ye10U98 10 “Krduowa[® Joyrays woueonpe Se ulus, souyjop TY =U, iy pue passed sem roy Buiuie2’] Jo “Goreanpa siy souBUYZ o MOY OF Se UoIS{o—ap fue BUYEL JO 30 WHO sty lyo owoou ue Surrey Jo arqedeo se woos 2q vane youueD Uosiad e uuaijs on ® ye poredui! si uoNeonpe ‘sexy “waspty atp Jo sesuadxe ‘Kuradoud pasinbae- 519s Jo wed se pareon azam Buu uo lapeu axe yoiym sure asoup uous ,Suyuseay Jo sure, oy, or} meq npulh ut Ayodosd ‘npuyp] 49pumn ‘ues s9usoredoo w 30 Ayure WH iAviadoig ayesedag soyoun - Byse2] Jo SUED (8) FY 66-979) “@pRag {rOUIe} S14 JO ‘swoouy pauonUsu-enoge "oY UI BJEYS © WIE! UOS SIY UCD “sword sAuedwoo aig jo %2 ue “w'd 000'S2 “Fe 10 voresounuzos & 0} pannue sem aq Atwes 24 Aq pouno sareus 002 pue o169p "271 “WW J0 88eq a4) UO Auedwsoo ax 40 sopang BuiBeueW ey) oWle20q YONA 'YoeO OOL ‘Se Jo SaIEUS (0000's 0 sis#su00 Auedwoo 01 jo eideo eu AuedICO @ U soieys 00z PauMo Awe) pepiripun npuIH Jo Evy Se YONA (a) beeee6~2'TO1l6002-1'0) 4 9800N5 jm ‘94 J24IEyM ‘ssnosiq “sonedosd asay) UI aseYs WEP UOS SIH ‘spun JH JO no ouieu siy ut paseyoind soe] g "sy YOM sajEoYHEO |seUS (1!) -voyeonpe jew} © eney o} YsueH Jo sosuadko oup 1 pauinouy Awe} ou “uorssejo1d jeoIpou! pew sBuee siy Jo yno “eweu siy ul ysueH Aq péagiound sem youn Ayedoxd-ouL () =soodosd Buyoyo) ou poumo ‘wl9q 1 BUM] Mp EXeUSYEMA e "USUEH (e}¥D “ours oun ur ystq Aq 1yBu e pey sousdiedoo e BuI9q 94 ep puna aap uo ‘asnoy ue 247 Jo Ino axeys e WIELD UD Ss, ‘seo juosaud yp ut ‘snyy, “uorsszoonsjaoueeyut Aq 2ajonap (éuadoud yensooue ue ay) a 1 uoup “eMp Jo Ioads—u UE TEA & Supyeur mous Auadoid ayeredas w puyoq Yo] JOU) & UUM Vs s24p8 sty Woy 108 (s) dau0P a4 Yara ‘EY Jo Ino aims ® wie[9 souur> gg ‘9se0 wosasd amp ut ‘sn ( Auadosd Tenssoue, Jo punoi® a1p uo 31 ul areys © UHe|O OWNED sitoy saysiy) Auradoud s,s0u0p 941 Se 2OUOP 241 UO aAJOAEP {11M 11 ‘furadoud ayeredas sty yo yoadsas uty @ SOYOU AOYTEY LOYAL (1) cn) = wey Knwes orThe said Act is a step in the right direct depends much more on ‘personal skill’ than (eg. one doctor or lawyer may have a flourishing practice, support for leaming and the fruits of learning. Even if the support provided by the joint family or any of its members, the frujts belong with any other person, using his own finances, the be his separate property. Decision of the case in question ‘The Share Certificates worth Rs. 6 lacs purchase name out of HUF funds family property). Thus, his son can (b) Salary and Remuneration - whether Separate Property? family properties are invested in an enterprise, industry or undertaking and by reason of such investme on behalf of the family or otherwise), is smuneration, fee or commission that ‘a coloured disguise to hide a share he may receive in that capacity Property in Hindu Law 51 in the profits of the enterprise itself to avoid the incidents of income tax.” separate properties of the eamer. In Raj Kumar Singh v Comme, Income Tax the Supreme Court has held that the main princi whether the income received by the coparcener was in coparcener. If the income was invested, the fact that coparcenei change the character of the rgceipt which of HUF. On the other hand, service rendered by the coparcener, the were availed by the qualification share brought b ly would not make the income of HUF and it will be the separate income of the coparcener. This principle was reiterated in Bhagwat v Digambar (AIR 1986 SC 1251). ‘Thus, where karta became the Managing Director of a company solely on the basis of joint family investment, the income was held to be JEP (Commr., Income Tax v Kalu Babu AIR 1959 SC 1288), other hand, where joint family investment was only used to purchase qualification share (ie. to obtain dividends and other advantages of being shareholders) and karta became M.D. of a company on the basis f his own qualifications, the income was held to be a separate property alaniappa v-Commr, Income Tax AIR 1968 SC 678). Earlier, in “ivare Lal v LT: Comm, (AIR 1960 SC 997), where the karta was a manager of a business concem and the joint family had given security of its properties for the karta's honesty, the court said that the earnings case would be income a remuneration for the 1ces that the services‘dst seredas ayn ut an04s 420 uolyued ® wyeyo uP 240 ON (5) “uomsodsip Jo s2f80d yy S04 19pI04 uN ‘uodpud aiedas Jo 19945 Ut (p>) Jo 8h 2 sopun sszoq ay UO Sonjohop Suodoud aresedas ayy, (6) joy yp Jo wasu09 araqut cue sa4inbo jadoad ayesedas uy (2) ‘suonemny, S tou st yoy. ISo.UH BAISMPDXD pur [aniosge seu uadoud presdss 241 Jo s2pjou ous (D ——_______ i. paunbae-sjag 40 ayetedag oy aigeut st dar — “dat 2TeUDqTe OF DHAry a4L pu sousaiedoo v jo ued aut ‘yt 01 ‘sousoitdon & “uo sassed df aU Nonnposag (¢) topsarsod jo Ayun pu a10u 40 stios anny sauzaredo> Sul — ssovoruy fo 24nroy (1) Gan Syadong Syunea wor Ayadoig ayesedag pue gif usoMyaq uonounSIG S'¥ &s me npuiH us Ayedord sroz/oLoz/600e~n'a) osied @ 40 Auadoud ojevedes oi yu BuiysinBunsip uadeid Aseusosedoo jo sounjeo} jeuasse ssnosiq thyadord ayeredos pue Ayedosd Aqwes qwof uagyag seousiay om O18 TEUN SD joys B uNojo TOUS UOS siy ‘sny, “(u0 -wuajguyns you sexx qwournep og pus Aseyes DA ALT ‘muwoy Uw} soAxoMoH Af O} WowLnep amp pue Buywse oamag sAxau ayajdwoo B sem D10KN TELA Puno LINO a4, 39; ovo q Arejes yeuosiad se vayes 2q poaiSe seas 1t pu diystouned & uy siasse Aj.urey a soUaploU plone O1 MmoIA B yim siouz0Ied00 soured se pouwa srousaredoo ay) yoIyA. auaadng ayn “(£89 OS 8961 MIV) LT “AmMoD a Caunsuoyq Uy “anoge| pur |IP4S feUosiad s,euey Jo awos!no au ‘arom 3nq UaUSaAUL fyureg Jo IIMSOH O49 YOU araM JeBEUEUI SE MI4OY JO 1 - meq Ayes a3 Rights and Powers of Karta and Coparceners iders as well as for Coparceners that each and every adult coparcener must have a say in each and every matter of the joint family. Thus, in its dealings with the Outsiders there has to be a ‘unit’. And for that purpose it becomes necess headed by a person now replaced the person charged with the work ie. management. Under hhe was the unquestioned ruler of the family, but the in of his power as head of the family have been considerably luted because of innovative legislative enactments and equitable judicial replaced by superior powers 1. Who can be a Karta ofthe Hindu Joint amily? (L.C.-95/86 [0.U-2008(Supp)) Isat Rights and Powers of Karta and Coparceners 55 n is regulated by seniority (Lalbarani v Bhuinath AIR 1974 Cal and does not depend upon merely the consent of the other family members. In the case of a conflict, the senior-most will be presumed to be and would continue as the Karta. So long as father is alive, he is karta. If he is very old/ infirm or absent for a long period or so desires, though he may be unable to look after the family affairs by reason of ‘age or health, ‘continues to occupy the representative capacity even A temporary absence of the father-is not suffici become a karta, if there is nothing to show that the within a is out of question (Siddappa v Linappa, 42 Mys HCR cases be the karta of the A senior-most coparcener may family. If all coparceners agree, a junic Chand v Hira Chand (2000) 1 H&R 250 (Ri assumption of karta’s power. by a cogent evidence (because, the pi member as the karta of the family is very strong). Further, junior member owes his appointment as Karta to the agr the coparceners; they may withdraw consent at any time, Tt has been held that even a minor can act as karta and represent ly through the guardian [Sarda Prasad v Umeswar Prasad (1963) ILR Pat 274), Juntor Member of Coparcenary as Karta Leapva Case: M/S. NOPANY si STMENTS (P) LTD. v SANTOKH (HUF) aT 448] (Ordinarily, the right to act as the Karta of HUF is vested in the senior-most male member but in his absence, the junior members can also act as Karta in exceptional circumstances]{eds gooe-nal _Enpuip ews} @ 0} uado eyer_jo uonsod S| Z pauidoo 0g rouue (@ue4 Jo 91) aula pos 0 oRIsod® wog JOU axe yng ‘SjuEpusosep 9TEUI [eOUL] OL 1ynep Vy ‘Kuodosd Jo diysieumo, Jo nq auoqu Ue Aarau OU 9ARY ISLE ELEY OL, zeuey se ssoquey ojeuios “Agus ‘ayn Joleuey oxy wy ayews 10u s2op rey) Inq ‘SIZE sIy Aq pUNOg 2q Aut srouadiedos sayojeuEy ayy “pue sodand ayy 40} Ayres ‘up wpsaxdas Kew uosiod y “(1¢s| ve] nur ayy spt sassassod seul Ons} JO 90URISIK9 DULL, usyp} scpowng) ee, 2u0 Ka, yuo pawuasasdas 9q 0} Sey foun in Suodord ay Jo yuowaSouou ox Joye Hoo] Kew suosiod omy | (rufuig fessor jo souersuy ayy 8 tins ox Jo Auyiqoursuyeus Jo uousanb ayy asies oy 1eUay at OF ‘woiA ano ul ‘uede ru, “YBurg fesse Aq {sv0 sopuonoygi4y Uy “aut Buo| v JO} WopBU Knuouewed Surders u9oq sey ‘i Joos axp “yBulg fey ueunyC rey a4oKy YONUOUE oy auMIUDA JS | s19uessedog pue e1Jey Jo S1omod pue SIUBIY ‘9m ane igure up Jo BUeyy atp se 198 UD JoquIOL JoWUn w eK Buroq “ys ‘om Jo eu ay) Se parse axeY 10U pInod YBUIg fesser eK quopjodde oy Jo quoumfixe ayy parofer umoD YBIH SUL “WwY se Joe Ose ueo sioquiau soqunf ayy “2ounsqe sty yng Joquiou 2[eu! IS0UrsORUDS 2p UH PaISaA St ANH JO ELEY ayn se 198 01 14S auR * Pansasgo u99q sey af UlasayM «,, 007 mpulzy,, UO edd pur Bn pur en Aq m7 mputyY fo sapdiout. siy pue sooueisuina.t9 ajouiad B Ul Kee Sem OU) sinogeaiayy as0uM (©) pure yeuondaoxa ut sere ay Jo souasqe au Ut ({t) duit Aressaoou £Q jar eUEY auf aua4ys (1) s2ypey ay) ‘TesIUds UI Jey UMop Pre Sem 1 “LL DOS Z (8861) ysoyo1g Woy A soUNY jWuNS UJ :paxt9sqo uNOd ay “ante sem 4H. Pwsosoye au Jo saquiow sople ue ‘pay Jo eURY aup Jo Arjgedes ayy ul “UondIAa 4 sousoiedos s8unok e soy) sem on: I me Ayes58 Family Law - i fon these females. Further, to be a kart, itis essential that not only should he be a male, but he should also be a coparcener, which a female is not: In Commr, 1 Tax v Seth Govind Ram Sugar Mills (AIR. 1966 SC Tax officer refused to register the partnership on the ground that the death of one partner (a coparcener of another partner) partnership is dissolved and thereafter another partner and minor sons could be treated only as an association of persons. The question i Whether a widow could be a karta of a Hindu joint family. The Supreme Court after reviewing the authorities held that the mother or any other female could not be the karta. ‘The Nagpur High Court held the view that a widow could:be a arta, in the absence of adult male members. But, Madras and Orissa High Courts held not. According to Hindu sages only a coparcener can be coparceners, they can’t be a karta would be the guardian jority and become parcenary property, } @ wife cannot v Kisun Choudhuri A mother, therefore, cannot be a karta, act as the karta Position post 1985 — Beginning ‘Andhra Pradesh (1985), Tamil Nad tra and Kamataka (1994), introduced the possi of unmarried daughters being coparceners in the same manner as a son. Since now, in these States, 'upon marriage, a daughter continues to be a coy rs she fulfils the 1994, the States of requirements for becoming a karta. Bom in the she acquires an i We Coparcenary property and therefore, she can be a karta, i in the family and she will be entitled to represent the fami legal proceedings.4 ——— 3. Seo. Pradhan Saxena, Fanily Law Il, 3" ed, p. 145 (2011) 4 id, p. 148 Rights and Powers of Karta and Coparceners 59. Position post 2005 — After coming into force of 2005 Amendment to the H.S. Act, 1956, a daughter is also a coparcener in the same manner 4s a son (having similar right in the coparcenary property). Therefore, in the father nce, she can be a Karta, if she is the senior-most member in the family and she will be entitled to represent the family in all legal proceedings. Position of Karta In the Hindu Joint Family, karta or head occupies a pivotal positi position of karta is determined by birth and he is not appointed by anyone, nor does the consent of other coparceners is required. He is entitled to be the karta because he ‘mast. So long as he is The position of karta ion of Hindu jurisprude ‘members are not that of family. acts on behalf of other members, but he is not like coparcener can, his services and he ions are backed by a presumption of the promotion of ly affairs. coparceners to the principal and agent (i.e. arta is neither a servant of the other coparceners ‘nor he is the principal of other coparceners (ny coparcener can ask for partition of JP; can challenge improper alienation of JEP). He is, however, the respected head of the ‘occupies the principal position among the copatceners. His posi superior to, other members.‘tapisino pur roquupu A ypumweN/sEy 2889 AX} HOM BACH wueyBtn asou u20q EIR at PRY “et punosd ayy Lo 199p Yons ‘Kure ayy ysureBe passed s1 2d1D9p 8 1 Jo asnB0aq pure OS OP JOU SBOP aU J! | 4p ansund 0} paroodxe st wey 2U “Ayyurey auy gp ssoquiow yp {Je Uo BuIpurq 2q Pino a “yNs w Yons tu wily asurede passed st aa10ap wv J] “ures amp Jo sreyaq UO ‘uy £q o1ur pasawus uogoesuen Suv jo Io2dsa1 ul pans aq 40 ans ‘Cour burey ou, “stout Buypnfout ssaquiow soypo 241 uo BuIpUIg ‘aie soe sil puv Kjjurey Jo J1e4oq WO sive of “oI2 ‘anuDKaL ‘sno¥9ij qe}20s“pe89y ‘F SuoWeU 2 ut wopomuaseudad o1 BR (M1) | -euey ain imum st 1} puads 0} woym uo pue ewoout ‘Aqgury autof amp puods 01 moy Jo uoJsisap a4, “SfaquioU! oF spun} tojfe 0} BURY 405 St 1 pue eiIeY 0} 3940 papuRy oq YSN Syuuky ayn jo swooUs yy ~ sumupuedso pun ewoou oF HBiel (8) -uonmued 40) se 0} st souzazedoo & ons oF Squo| 241 “asnoy ay) Jo 1no WY AosIp O} JaMod ‘sugey peq J0 snoineyaq saplosip sy 01 anp douesinU B aq 0} soAoid ‘auoy squsey ay ul 2ouasosd s,rouso.edoo v jt ‘ioyung “uorssused Sty thomas “2woDt 40 Auiodosd yung autol aypoads & {Jo ubissassod aatsno soqpyp uve sausaiedod f “oqo 0} anvy saute] 24 yout “2ouapise s.roquious Ajpurey 105 asnoy ayy Jo 40 9pioap 0} 1yBs e Soy BUY a4 “TeEdWH UaAe J0 a}qeuNbo pue 9sv9 v soso} ng ‘Ayuoouts 1soUt 19 | ssousssedog pue eriey Jo siomog pue SiUBIY {oeis6-1971 AI; MPU wef ex jo syeYe oun JO edsas U eLEY Jo eMod aMN IE EU “S 9q 104 paou oy ‘ssoquiour Ajrurey o1 1o0dsox ym suoIstoop ‘ “aaes 0} punog you st 1 quours8euewr sty uonsanb wes (iunoo aip Butpnjoul) au ou se ‘anjosqe st ~ Auadasdsainffo Ajumf fo uawa8ouou fo 1aog (1) “Gare passnasip) 81 — wowouayo fo sonog () sVIAVH AO SLHOTE GNV SUaMOd (Os) sez ULI £9 (L961).L19 4 azoysry po8ny] wuauraose ue Yons Jo Aupirea stp aBu9| 124 ouues r291yo xe, aulooUy ay “suuMaL xe} awoout ay) Ut ,aimpuodxa, Se 1f MOyS Uo Ajjuiey ayy pure pIfeA aq PInom wawaarBe ap ‘Kreles e anjzoar 0} saai8e ay “iuawaasSe ue o1 aotensind ur 31 ‘aloyarou4y “(eot0yp sty Jo woneooKe poSpay 1iny e ur own owes oq wads aAEK 0} papmua you st ay ‘sng, “AiBiouoy Afaind st wey e Jo Sseqyuag 40) uonesounwioy € WI Stag ¢ “uoyopy IAF A wrung | Jo S198 Jo} qunoo9e ‘up 04 a]qeiunosse aq spremoy uonejas Areronpy sey a} “3aIsTUY v Jo yeYA o1 paredwoD 2q Pinos pue aouapyuos 40 ysMsy © JO TENN S| PUB B JO SOUIO ayI, + meq Aymes oFa@ Family Law - 1 (vi) Power to contractiacknowledge debis ~ authority to contract debts and He has an implied pledge the credit of family for ness. Such debts are binding or business... if the le for debts. ‘The karta has the power to acknowledge a debt, but he cannot relinguish a debt due to the family. Also, he cannot pass a promissory not revive a time-barred debt. Where a loan is raised by the arta (for a lawful purpose) by executing a promissory note in his name.” such a inds the other coparceners, but only to the extent of their shares, lunless they were parties to this contract (Sirikant Lal v Sidheshwar! Prasad AIR 1937 Pat 455). : In certain cases, the karta has the full power to give a valid discharge for all debts due to the family, (wii) Power t0 enter into contracts — ordinal ntal to the family business and such contracts are binding on the family Karta’s Duties and Liabilities (Responsi them, he can be sued for m as well as arrears of maintenance. (i) To pay taxes, ete. - on behalf of the fami for all tenance and he can be sued To recover debts due to the family. Partition — is a great check on karta’s absolute powers. (¥) Liability t0 account ~ Normally, the karta Keep accounts of how he has spent the family funds, but ‘where a coparcener demands partition, he can require the karta to give him accounts, Sometimes, the nature of business is such that necessitates proper accounting at all times. In such cases, the karta has to give accounts to a member demanding it Girljanandini Devi v Brijendra Narain AIR 1967 SC 1124), ‘The Karta has to give accounts for the money he had actually received and not what he could have received if he had managed the property not supposed to reasonably and not economi Further, he can only be asked to render the accounts as they Sxisted on the date ofthe demand; he cannot be forced to render past accounts, unless there are charges of fraud, misappropriation, ete. (Suryanarayana v Sugamanathi AIR 1961 A.P. 393). In Bengal, however, for families govemed by Mitakshara or Dayabhaga law, a copercene: bas aright to require the karta to give him accounts ofthe dealings with Tespect to the JFPS RIGHTS OF COPARCENERS (INCIDENTS OF COPARCENERSHIP) hts of coparceners are: © Right of joint ownership (or communal ownership) — The remarkable feature of it is that one is born with property. Communal ownership is expressed by saying that the interest is unpredictable aid Ructuating or there is community of interest Ownership of coparcenary property is vested in the whole body of coparceners. So long as partition doesn't take place, idual coparcener can claim any specific share or specific ‘may be enlarged by deaths and diminished Gi) Possession, enjoyment and use of joint family Property ~ The possession of one coparcener is pos all coparceners. And, no coparcener has a right of e possession of any port i 's ousted, he can’t by legal action recover the possession of ‘same property. There is no exclusive possession. However in certain cases, a coparcener can enforce this right by a suit in case he is excluded from any part of JFP viz. when he is prevented from using a staircase or a door leading to the room in his ovcupation ee See P. Pradhan Saxena, Famly Law ll, 3 ed, p. 180 (20110.{sol ttoz-n'o} 7 “Auadoud Atuse} wot out ojeuaye 0 eUeN Jo sraMed OMY UO siEIOgeI3 “b uoao Auodosd arp areuayqe 0} euey 247-01 uossjuuiod Jo jeIUap ainjosqe uy “ssgusasedos say0 Jo qwassip ayy audsep Auadoid ues atp siomodusa yoy ,onecuoNe payed paoU, spdou Jo sown ur Aqpurey aup s0j Aymoas w sKemye St “suaquigus Sy Jo uaUILEP ay OF qjf Jo saysuEN syeurUNOSIPUL oxy wsuTEBE quatouy “étuo sasodind uyey90 Jo} z2us0sedoo/eey ‘9q uve Kuadosd asym “Xi2Io0s sno uy ‘yeap sty sage asurede paaioyua aq 1,ue9 q Auodoud Ayurey yuyof uy ysasorut sAdf Woy, uoIsNfaxo IsureTe Bu, & soy Jousoredoo v ‘snyy [697 woR 61 ‘s6BI ‘Yodon A remuy] = meq knwes ”6% Family Law - 11 when the family needs money can be disadvantageous to the fam itself. Thus, the Karta can do it when the alienation was unavoidabl where, but for this transfer, the interests of the family would have been adversely affected and to protect or benefit the family members or the Property itself. ‘The Karta may alienate the JFP in the following three cases: (@) Legal necessity. Vijananeshwara recognized three excepti of the JEP could be mad (i) Kutumbarthe i.e, for the sake of the family (benefit of estate). Gil) Dharamarthe i.e. for pious purposes. ‘The Karta’s alienation in the aforesaid cases binds the interest of the ‘minor coparceners also. Therefore, it is submitted that the correct of Karta’s pow karta, and not not. However, for an it must be shown that the famil Purposes, as afores n had its origin in the Dharmashastas, it has been all along by the judiciary. perty even if none of the above cf other coparceners. The latter is an ‘expr for alienation of JFP by the Karta. Allenation of Hindu Joint Family Property oa One ofthe ‘undivided coparcener’ alone cannot alienate the JFP even to the extent of his share even for a permitted purpose as this authority is available only to ‘Karta.’ Such alienation would be void and not binding on the JEP at all. (@) Legal Necessity Broadly speaking, ‘legal necessity’ will include all those things which ae deemed necessary for the members of the famil necessity of the family, with respect to its members, cases, also with respect to its pro ‘The concept of legal nec (famine, epidemic, floods, conception of legal necess 1971 SC 1028), the Supreme Court has ? actual compelling necessity is not the sole if property was alienated satisfaction of that need, it would be enough. The term is to be interpreted with due regard to the conditions of modern life. For an alienation to be valid under ‘legal necessity’ there must be existence of a need or lawful purpose, and, the family does not possess ‘monetary or alternative resources from which the requirement can be met. Also, the course of action taken by Karta shot ordinary prudent person would have taken with respe: For example, a joint family owns considerable finan‘ Property; it has to pay government dues (a purpose). But, there is no ‘necessity’, as sufficient resources are available from which dues can be paid. A prudent person should pay the dues or even debts, from his 2. See. Pradhan Saxena Family aw! Wad nm 26 ranessjap “2yeis9 xp ayouaq oF s0ps0 ul “eu yuoprid fp se uoreuaype sayour soSeuewyuespsend w ose uy (ji) “arms Jo ayouog Jo} 40 Aayssa0ou yea] Jo ase om UL ABLE amod payifenb pue part ‘we] npuT}] amp Japun reise ue aBreyD 0} (ee Jo sMod ayy 1 ue oj seBoUEUIATEIpTENS ayn Jo 1mod YL, () sodoud 9445 Suymotiog foun papunodasd jrounog Kati ay — worstoag pun uoyDALaS9O | “anuanas quouusano8 Jo ywowsed-uou unos aq uo sofeun Burwos9q Jey sea UOS yuRJU JoY Jo URIpTEN axa JO 8 q painoaxa aBeBuotu ureni00 Y ~ ste 2U SEM 2194) FEM) PUL ApH BUOG PaIDE 24 YEH | moys 03 sapuayaasaysuesyaauoyte ayp wo st Joosd Jo wapanq auf “samod payntenb pu panunt st sumo sq you s] you ‘976,59 Ue BBEYD 0} 2FoH JUEJUL Ue 405 ELLE jen3 ayy Jo s9mod ayy, “Aysadaud ue 4940 yeeodsip | {Jo siomod payy, pey Oya asouy ITE 0} apind & sy 2589 SIyI) roe ou 9 aq leee vw 9 (9g7)] ‘aaUaMNOOM TVENNW 33008VE AVWASSNW A AVONYd GNVSUZdNVWOONNH 735") OMavaT ‘Aysso00N 2827 :Me7 9509 (88¢ Wog BE61 UIV Pddoyjoyy oddoyaq A ysoUnANE Uuos souIws B Jo uondope axa Jo waWYstIqEIsD a4p JO4 (4) 01 eV S61 WIV dosmandor yuo) Busy, soneq 40) aoe] MOU B OF BuNEIBIU 40] (x) “fuadoid 2p|Jo wed 40 ajoym Jo uonronnsap ay) prove Jo ajes e HARE OL (x) fa A pss wersordd pe “(ory 3eN 9761 ULV !OquapuNs A YBuIg Oojoy) aVEIS? AyurEs ‘ay Buyasasaid 40 Suyanooss uy uoneSiiy, Aressea2u Jo 150 (Xi) ‘gsnoy Ayuey 8 Buyszedas soy sasuadxo ‘| IS “(EE Wd 1861 UIY CApnsoT A posvig winy) asnoy vyyod w yonNsUOD 0} ple] JO aTeS “fusodosd Aynurey ‘2p Jo aBeSuow w afseyostp oy ‘iuas Jo sseaurequas Jo wouked ej 40 yeroury Aressagat Jo soueuLopsog ‘ssoutsng 40} pastes ueoj jo wawceday -Ciurey fay uo Supuig sigap-pue anuanas wounwusnog Jo syusuieq (A) sanowoy, uy ‘ap puayap 0} st sty, souaozedos Jayjoue Jo sopunt Ut PAlOAUL tou st 24 popiaoud “(gou wed CE6L WIV MDMsopUIg A 1LAm/Y) afrey> [BURL snou9s UL parfoaut Joquiau v Jo 20U2}9q “soquowrareo (ay TLL PEW ony UpuoUy A DgQns DIDyUAA Ul “MIA DIAIP B S BiH SespeW Ing "CunoD HBL NEBEN) Kysse0.U [8 waBipuy you st sonynep © way nysnep s,somySnep jo aBeEYY ‘hinp epsads e st azaxp woyn spuessoy ‘sronynep Suipnjout Aiuey Jo siaquiows oxp Jo aeisrey Jo s1aquiou! au) Joy ase [eotpaut ja4s ‘Poo ~ soureuoTUreUs [es9U2H ‘Ayssooon [007 Jo $9829 anyesisn) ‘pur ‘uoneonpa “Bunpo} “ase ows Jo szouessumaits pue si2%j amp UO puodap axosaoyy ysnUL a] ‘un Jo aBessed ayn puis iwaiuos sir aBueyo eur Arpsso00u [eI IH Z (8661) Pmauouysyo7 vjolor 6 eA 9q 1ouRIeD UoKIEapISUOD Jo aes y "30s BURNT Loupe aBeBLOW v WOYS ue ‘AAC JO 91eS a4 Woy URI JoyreH SBuLAES cu 20 avenbopeu ‘aissod ou sw MW mer Aywed 7Family Law - It bona fide lender or alienee is not affected ty the previous mismanagement of estate, provided the lender or aienee was not a party to mismanagement. In other words, he shouldn't have acted mala fide. ‘The actual pressure on the estate, the danger to be averted, or the benefit to be conferred upon it in the particular instance, is the thing to be regarded. (i) The alienee is bound to make proper and bong fide enquiries as to the existence of necessity. 4. is not bound to see as to the actual of money for the legal necessity. He is rot an administrator of fund. (vi) The guardian/manager is under an obligation to take an alienation as a prudent man, but the mere creation of a charge on the minor's property for securing properly a debt cannot be viewed as imprudent management because money to be secured on any ‘estate’ is likely to be obtained on easier terms than a loan which rests on mere ‘because, when oné deals with a person whom one knows supposed to know to be a person of qualified powers, it 's duty to satisfy oneself that such a person has power Alienation of Hindu Joint Family Property tums out that actually there was no need for alienation or that hhe was deceived. In the present case, there was no suggestion that the debt, of infant's father was contracted for i bbe conferred upon an estate than to save it from ion by sequestration, the payment of arrears of revenue Moreover, a bond of this nature does not exti title of the infant, it follows the equity, that the mortgage bond Leavine Case: DEV KISHAN v RAM KISHAN (AIR 2002 Raj. 370) ld cannot be said to be for lawful purpose, restFained by law and is opposed to public question of law was whether the taking r member of the family for the marriage of a minor member of the family is a debt incurred for a legal necessity or is for illegal purpose? The Karta of the family executed a mortgage, a sub- ‘mortgage and a sale of two houses (JFP) worth around Rs. 8,000-9,000 for a consideration of Rs. 400-900 for the alleged necessity of marriage of his three minor children who were in the age group of 8-12 years, ‘The court held that where the marriage of the minor was. performed in violation of the provisions of the Child Marriage nwre jes axp Aypsnf 0} Se a1eIso ay Uo aunssaid Suyjodwioo jons OU sem 2104p JIB “0OO'F “SY Moge YOM aJ0M spUE] ‘q1 se ayenbopwut sexs 2[es 24} 30} QOO'E “SY Jo UorTeIepsUOD ‘un veyp ‘Kuo 099'2 “Se JO warxD ayn Or apes a4 40} AyIss—90u qe3oy sem axoqp NP pundg und jeIn au, “woY) UO SuIpuIg you ‘Suojaiotp ‘puR_aye}s9 axp Jo aysu9g oUp 40} OU pue Ayss20Iu fr 4J0} 10U SEM poop 98s presasoye ou IU UOTEXEIOAp v 105 ' “fyqurey ayn Jo 1y9UIq ayp 40j JOU SEM apes oH ‘IOJ>IONN ins v poqyy “ofeur Buyurene uo ‘Siaypouq JOUILH OM ULL nj 94) OF Y9eq auIED pu aBeBLOW ax WON) paseo|a1 uadoud paSeSuow Jo sui! xis 4040 au, ‘PasesHoW ue} Jo Sway! Ua ayn Jo Imo sno} Jo yoadsas ut swueyraddy amp Jo aint) Jo anoney ul (QQ0'E “Su Jo woNeIaprsuoD e 40)) poop ajes pomngaxe svaypoug JOUNL siy fo ueIprENS axp puE AyLUEy ip Jo saBeuew amp se suiodind uo$ ynpe ot, “S10UN xy pte Yos a]Npe UE WHY pulyaq Surv] Pap EEN oy | “eaBeBow au for uar Sed 0} pauinbas atom ang sosiuiaud uao aroun Ur Buy aus sioFeBHOW otf) wed paywindyis w 40) 1O8eBUOU at fen poses se pu axe 9opin9 a Woy Sede 91199 [so8eSuow Auossossod a19m soBefiow ay yiog “PaseBuow {jsnotaaid pucy aup Suypnyou! pur jo sutay wo) Jo 190ds01 Ut 000'T |sy Jo ums w 10} so8eSuow aus oyf Jo snoAw) uy aBesoW be peop soqjoue pamnooxo ay ‘Jeie7 “puR] Jo WH ajBuIs w Jo hoodsal ul ggg'l “Sy Jo wins © 40} siueyadide ayy Jo s04 Te Jo 4 Lnoavy ul d8e8uow Jo paap v pemnoaxo vey ay “ase | |. [a1eyso agp 0} ayauag 40 Anssa9ou e389] sem 2424) 21 POZIT ‘yiadoad uaaq seq 9164p pue ayenbape st poazooad wolyeA9pysuOD Jaup yous uaos aq 0} seq HE pHreA 9q 0} oREUEATE UE 405 “SMM, | “ayes amp ayepyyean you 1 40} payunosse you 51 p ‘payunoade 05 stapes 249 30 spasp0ad 249 0 ey uy £9 pasamout q9P | Sujazeyosip jo asodand aun 203 pjos 51 Assadoad yeaysaoue 2194A\) (evo 95 o86r uv) VNNY A GNIAUY =35v9 ONIOve] Auysso20y 1epsed et) Auiedord Kywed ulor NpUIH Jo UoReUOTIY “uorresop|suoo arenbape ue 40) parnaya u99q eaty Pinoys ssajsues ayp *£ouou! Jo p2OU B SPM o1OKp J! PUB panjeAropun Auradosd ax ‘osyy “Kouow ayp asres 0} Ausodosd ru 9} [96 0} P2OU OU SEA Atay} pu BuIUsED o1OM (UAUPILYS ‘up Jo s2ipoul pue sioupouq) A|jurey orp Jo sxaquiow ‘bya vei pauosea1 oste unos ayp ‘ase 1waseld om Ul -a4ss900U JO} 2185 plfeA w Sem aes otf “pore Ajingave] ua0q anvy ppnoo at uoyrs Be ay Suueou sem oy luos siy Jo S8euIoU ayy 40} UOIstAoId o¥eUI o} pu] [eNS2OUE ‘yp Jo [2s paroayja we a AIIYM TEM PLAY SEM IL ‘Ose Jarre] 4p ul “309100 9q 01 (SEE Hd €L61 IV) YR A bymy wy un0g YBiH wuEKEHY pue qufung axp Kq rye puE (LSE UV ZL61 MLV) 2G Moa “mug A wDsseag UL NED BIH pequyeiy ayy Aq uae mala a4 punos 10U pip UN0D oH, “ouRylg| Jo MP] 01 Suypiozoe ajqeystund you sem aBeyrew yons 1g] UL aunyE|siSe] Op YO! ‘up Se partes 2q 10U pinoo aBojueu amp 20} aurajpyadxo axp jo uoroues axp 40} ZOUK oI {Jo JTeuoq Uo apeur st uojeaydde we pue jun00 a4p Kq pamutodde ‘aalgoa! JO SpUuRy OY US] a}@SO ss0UUE om Uy eH Play Brainy fossuozy wl UNOD YSIH] EHNDTED op “Os|Y -pourdo Ayrojiunis 2889 (Fg UO 8L61 YIV) 120 MAPS A SOC soMYsAyOPY UL NOD YBIH BSS ay) pur woAofiuny moyguey UI UND YBIH Aequiog 2111 “6261 Jo 9 941 Jopun aBeLLEU Py> Jo UOHIqIyoId ‘0p Jo axata ut “Korjod a4jgnd 0} pasoddo 2q pjnom suonsesuen Yyons ‘siourms BuicLeus Jo asodind aut 205 pjos 40 padeSuow sem Kuadoud otp J] Siounus ay) uodn Buy ya se papseBo1 9q jouueo punai8 yey uo uoMeUAHTE pUE 1q2P Inyace] @ se papredax 9q youuED “|ryme] OU sem YoIyA ‘osodund ey 40} paumnout u29q Bury Iqap amp “6z61 PY wENsey Ws meq Awes