UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAWS

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE,

LUDHIANA
PROJECT WORK
SUBJECT- FAMILY LAW II

TOPIC- CLASSIFICATION OF HINDU PROPERTY

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY

DR.AMAN AMRIT CHEEMA SRISHTI PUNJ

Punjab University Regional Centre, BA LLB (HONS)
Ludhiana SEMESTER : 4
ROLL No. 37
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Primarily I would like to thank God for being able to complete this project with success.
then I would like to thank my family law professor DR AMAN AMRIT CHEEMA
ma’am who gave me the opportunity to do work on the assignment on the topic:
CLASSIFICATION OF HINDU PROPERTY and whose valuable guidance has helped
me patch this project and make it a full proof success. Her suggestions and instructions
have served as the major contribution towards the completion of this project.
I would also like to thank my parents and classmates who helped me with this project
within a limited time.
I am making this project not only for marks but to increase my knowledge.

SRISHTI
PUNJ
LIST OF CASE LAWS

NAME OF THE CASE PAGE NUMBER

23
ANUP SINGH V. HARBANS KAUR

ARSHNOOR V. HARPAL SINGH 13

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13

V. KARUPPAN CHETTIAR

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX 13

VERSUS CHANDER SEN

CN ARUNACHALAN V. CA 11
MURUGANTHA MUDALIAR

GAURAV SIKRI V. KUHALAYA 13

SIKRI

KAMLESH DEVI V. MANGAT RAM 11

8
MURUGAPPA V. THE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

13
NARAYANLAL V. COLLECTOR OF
ESTATE DUTY

RAM NARAIN V. PRITAM SINGH 13

 PAGE NUMBER
NAME OF THE CASE

SIDRAMAPPA V. BABAJAPPA 8

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. 16
NARAYAN RAO

SWARNLATA V. KULBHUSHAN LAL 20

TRIPURA SUNDRI V. 9
KALYANARAMANA
INDEX

INTRODUCTION -CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 6

SEPARATE PROPERTY 8
INTRODUCTION- 8
SOURCES OF SEPARATE PROPERTY 8
1.Property which a person acquired through adverse possession: 8
2.Property is acquired through his learning or special skills , 8
3.Property received by way of prize or scholarship. 9
4.Benefits of insurance policy: 9
5.Property gifted by any person: 9
6.Government grants 10
7.Property which a person received from any relative through partition
except from father, fathers father or fathers fathers fathers: 10
8.Property inherited from any relative – 10
9.Property received by daughter or a father’s wife (women): 11
10. Property which came through father or father's father or father's father's
father 11
JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY 16
INTRODUCTION 16
SOURCES OF JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY 17
1.Property received in partition 17
2 .Doctrine of blending 18
3. Doctrine of detriment 20
4 .Gains of learning Act 21
5. Doctrine of accretion 22
6.Recovered joint family property 23
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 24

INTRODUCTION -CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

According to Article 220 of Hindu Law1, Property is classified into two types: (1) Joint
Hindu Family Property (2) Separate Property. There is a lot of division and
classification in Property. Before the enactment of Hindu law, there were two principal
schools i.e. Mitakshara and Dayabhaga.

1 Bansal, Anil. “Whether Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Has Abolished the Concept of Joint Family Property of
Hindu Law?” Law Finder, 15 Nov. 2017, <www.lawfinderlive.com/Articles-1/Article19.htm?
AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.>
 The mitakshara school Classifies property mainly under 2 heads : apratibandha daya or
an obstructed heritage and sapratibandhaya or obstructed property. All properties
inherited by a Hindu male from a direct male ancestor not exceeding 3 degrees higher to
him are called apratibandha daya. In this property, his son,Son’s son and son's son's son's
acquire an interest by birth therefore it is called an unobstructed heritage.on the other
hand when a person inherits property from any other relation such as maternal or paternal
Uncle or brother then it is known as sapratibanda Daya and son,Son’s son and son's
son's son's or for that matter any other person does not equate an interest by birth in the
unobstructed Heritage.
SEPARATE PROPERTY
INTRODUCTION-

A separate property is also known as sapratibandh ie obstructed property. Separate

property is owned by a person exclusively and he enjoys absolute powers of disposal over
it. He can sell it or gift it to any person or he can donate it for religious purpose or for
some charitable purpose. In respect of such property the coparceners have no right and
the property evolves through succession. if a male Hindu dies intestate i.e. without
making a will then his separate properties to be devolved through the rules of succession
given under section 8-13 of Hindu Succession Act2. And if a female dies intestate then
her property is devolved according to the rules of succession mentioned under section 14-
16 of Hindu Succession Act. The 2005 amendment in Hindu Succession Act has not
made any major changes in the rules of succession either in the case of males or females.

SOURCES OF SEPARATE PROPERTY

1. Property which a person acquired through adverse possession:

When the property is in possession of a property for more than 12 years. It is not a
result of joint family efforts and hence it is not a part of joint family property.

2. Property is acquired through his learning or special skills , by which we can

say that person gets a salary or remuneration:

CASE-MURUGAPPA VS.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX3

One of the coparceners was the managing agent of the mill. The court held that the
commission earned by him would be his separate earnings unless any portion of
the joint family is used. The fact that the karta stands in fiduciary relationships
with other members of the family is immaterial.

3. Property received by way of prize or scholarship.

4. Benefits of insurance policy:

An insurance policy taken in a person's name usually belongs to him alone and on
his death it passes to his legal representatives. The purpose of insurance policy is

2 See Hindu Succession Act,1956

for more information <http://www.bareactslive.com/ACA/ACT039.HTM>
3 1952 Mad.828
 that the interest of his legal representatives not to be adversely affected in case of
ultimately death of the person whose life is to be insured.

Case-SIDRAMAPPA V. BABAJAPPA4

The Mysore High Court held that if the father paid the premiums or an insurance
policy in the name of his sons out of love and affection, for the son the policy
would belong to the son and would be considered as his exclusive property.

Case- NARAYANLAL V. COLLECTOR OF ESTATE DUTY 5

The court said that in every case where joint family funds are used for payment of
premia of a life insurance policy there is a detriment to the joint family,but that is
not the sole criterion. If joint family funds are advanced to members of the
coparcenary for their individual benefits , there is strictly speaking, a detriment to
the joint family, nonetheless the intention with which that money determines the
character of the income or the amount earned therefrom. It is submitted that this
seems to be the correct view.

5. Property gifted by any person:

According to the Mitakshara, “A gift consists in the relinquishment, without
consideration, of one’s own right of property and the creation of the right of
another. The creation of another man’s right is completed on that other’s
acceptance of the gift, but not otherwise.”6 Gift of the following properties can be
considered:

● Gift of his self acquired property by the father to the son - every Hindu has full
power of disposal over his separate property. When self-acquired property of a
Hindu devolves on his son by inheritance, the son takes it as ancestral property but
through numerous judgements it was submitted that a simple rule should be that
the donee-son take it as separate property unless any restrictions are imposed on a
gift.
● By the Father as a karta: he has the power of making a gift of a small portion of
movable joint family property as a gift of affection and love.In a judgement

4 AIR 1962 Mys. 38

5 AIR 1969 AP 188
6Sharma, Sunil. “Concept of Gift under Hindu Law.” LawPage, lawpage.in/hindu-law/part-2/gift-under-hindu-law.
Accessed 12 June 2021.
 supreme court held that father can make a gift of immovable property to daughter
as a matter of love and affection.7
Case- TRIPURA SUNDRI V. KALYANARAMANA8The court held that the
gift of immovable property could not be made to any relation even not to one’s
wife.
● By Karta- karta of the joint family whether a father or someone else has the power
to make a gift of ancestral immovable and movable property within reasonable
limits in discharge of his religious duties or for pious purposes. such a gift can be
inter vivos and not by will.

6. Government grants

(where contrary intention is not manifested.),if property, movable or immovable,is

granted to a coparcener by the government, it will constitute the separate property
of the grantee unless it has been specially given to him as joint family property.

7. Property which a person received from any relative through partition except from
father, fathers father or fathers fathers fathers:

For example if a person got property through partition from maternal grandmother
is his separate property.

8. Property inherited from any relative –

for example received in succession of mothers property, brother, sisters property

or maternal uncle or maternal grandfather or grandmother. But where a woman
takes share in the coparcenary property on the death of her husband under Hindu
Women Right To Property Act, 1937 and hold it for her life and on her death such
shares reverts to the collaterals who take it as reversioners such share that the
collaterals take by reversion would be coparcenary property in the hands with
respect to their male descendants and would not be their separate property 9.

7 GURAMMA V. MALLAPPA,AIR 1964 S.C. 510

8 AIR 1966 MAD.245
9“Women’s Right to Property.” Deccan Herald [Bangalore,Karnataka], 9 July 2009,
www.deccanherald.com/content/12717/womens-right-property.html.
 9. Property received by daughter or a father’s wife (women):
● Daughter- as we know that daughters can never be a source of
coparcenership so from this we can conclude that in partition the property
which came to the daughter (after 2005 amendment) that will be her
separate property.
● The share came to women in partition
➔ Before 1956 : At the time of partition where the property was allocated to a
woman Before 1956 it stood on the same footing as the one inherited from
her husband and she had no absolute rights of disposal over it. on her death
when property went to the reversioners they took it as coparcenary
property.
➔ After 1956: by the virtue of section 14 of Hindu succession act,195610 full
ownership rights have been given to the female so after 1956 the share
which came to her in partition is her separate property.

10. Property which came through father or father's father or father's father's father
● By the way of gift from father:
father has the power to make gift of his separate property in favour of anyone
including his son or daughter through a gift a person gets a share of the father's
property well ahead in point of time and becomes competent to exercise control
over it because the father made him so capable by giving ownership while other
members have to wait for him to die.
Case -KAMLESH DEVI V. MANGAT RAM , the court held that a gift by the
father of separate properties to his son would be absolute property of the son with
respect to his issues and no right in the property would be best automatically in his
children for the following reasons it's specifically being so provided under
mitakshara law.
● By the way of will from father:

10 sec 14 of Hindu Succession Act,1956, Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.(1) Any
property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held
by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation .In this sub-section, property includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female
Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from
any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after the marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase
or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana
immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any
other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or
other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.
 if the intention of the testator was the son should enjoy the property with his
branch the character of the property would be ancestral with respect to his issues
but where the intention was that the son should enjoy it absolutely or to the
exclusion of his descendants. it would be the separate property of the Son. This
intention can be expressly provided in the will or can be implied from the
language and if it can be ascertained from the will then it will be the alone
determining factor with respect to the character of the property in the hands of the
Son.
Case- CN ARUNACHALAN V. CA MURUGANTHA MUDALIAR 11
In this case the Supreme Court after a review of similar text and a large number of
contradicted judicial opinions came to the conclusion that unless an intention
appears from the language of the will that it should be treated as ancestral property
in the hands of the Son or it would be the son’s separate property where the
intention is not clear the contents of the will and the class of beneficiaries would
be determining factor.
● By the way of succession:
➔ Before the 1956 Act: Hindu succession Act was enacted in 1956. The act
intended to amend and qualify the laws governing intestate succession among
Hindus. it both modifies and codifies the Hindu law.. Section 412 of the Act
provides that any rule of Hindu law or custom inconsistent with the provisions of
this act would cease to have any effect and it is statutory provisions that would
prevail. A cumulative reading of both the preamble and section 4 shows that
whenever the classical law has been modified or abrogated by any provisions of
this act, the law as given by the act will apply. with respect to the character of the
property inherited by the Son from his 3 paternal ancestors in the main line the law
was well established that It would Coparcenary property in the hands with respect
to his male descendants up to 3 generations who would acquire a right by birth in
it and would also be entitled to enforce partition. The property is in fact held to be

11 1953 AIR 495

12 Sec 4 of Hindu Succession Act,lays down Overriding effect of Act.(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in
this Act,
(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately
before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is
made in this Act;
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far
as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.
 inherited by the whole branch with the Son taking it not in his individual capacity
rather as karta or last holder of the property.
➔ After the enactment of Hindu succession act: the law of inheritance regarding
the property of male Hindu was laid down under section 8 to 13 and schedule 1 of
this act, where some basic principles were retained and many rules were modified
and some were abrogated. As far as the Son is concerned he's still a primary heir
and inherits the property of the father. But the question that arises is what is the
character of this property in the hands with respect to his issues after the
enactment of Hindu succession Act? Does he take it as a separate property to the
exclusion of all his descendants, males and females or does he take it as the kartr
of his branch ?
Case RAM NARAIN VERSUS PRITAM SINGH13
Separate property of Hindu male when inherited by the son on his death becomes
ancestral coparcenary property with respect to his male issues. This property
therefore was the separate property of the acquirer to begin with but changes its
character and becomes ancestral after its inheritance by the son of the owner with
respect to his own son.
Case ARSHNOOR VERSUS HARPAL SINGH14
The much discussed judgement of 2019 which provides that before the passing of
the 1950 Act if the separate property of the father was acquired through succession
by his son then that property will be his joint family property with his
descendants.
Case COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VERSUS CHANDER SEN15 The
family comprised the father, his sons and his grandsons after effecting a partial
partition both the father and son carried on their respective businesses.on the death
of the father, the son inherited his separate properties and received the undivided
share by survivorship. The son, chander sen as karta of his family comprising two
sons filed a return of his net wealth and showed the joint family income including
the one which he got through survivorship but it did not include the property
which he inherited from his father through succession of his father's separate
property. The wealth tax officer did not accept his contention and maintained that

13 1999 IAD Delhi 785

14 AIR 2019 SC 3098
15 1986 SC 1753
 the property received from the father either by survivorship or through inheritance
is coparcenary property in the hands of the son.
Case COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. KARUPPAN CHETTIAR16 The
decision was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court After discussing the number of
cases and schemes of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 held that after the passing of
such an Act, the properties inherited by a son from his father would constitute a
separate property and not as his coparcenary property.
Case GAURAV SIKRI VERSUS KUHALAYA SIKRI17
Upon the death of the Interstate, his widow, three sons and a married daughter
inherited the property. all the children namely the three sons and daughter
executives a release deed in the favour of their mother relinquishing all rights in
her favour and by this widow becomes the absolute and the sole owner of their
property. The estranged wife and two male children of one of the living sons of the
Interstate claimed the share in the deceased property. rejecting their claim, the
court held that it is only the sons, daughters and widow of the Interstate who are
the heirs and can inherit the property of the Interstate. The wife of the son and son
of the son are not heir during the lifetime of the son and have no share whatsoever
in the property of the deceased.
The concept which was provided by classical law in this context was abrogated by
1956 Act due to the following reasons
➔ The basis for confirming right by birth in the property of father or paternal
ancestor was the spiritual benefit that the son, grandson or a great grandson could
confer on such ancestor. under the present Act, the spiritual benefit rule has been
replaced by the “rule of nearness in relationship”. This rule of nearness in
relationship is very evident as the children of predeceased daughters are Class II
heir on the basis of nearness in relationship to the Interstate. their rank is above the
father or the brother, this indicates that the legislature wanted to make a clear
departure from classical view and with spiritual benefit no longer a rule, there is
no reason why the grandson should continue to have right by birth in the property
that is farther inherited under Section 8 of this Act.
➔ The terms used to denote Class I heir are son, son of a predeceased son, son of a
predeceased son of a predeceased son and not son, grandson or great grandson.
the use of expression “predeceased” shows that the son of a living son will not be

16 1992 197 ITR 646 SC

17 AIR 2008 Delhi 40
 a heir and cannot succeed to the property of his Grandfather in his own right as he
will be excluded by a person nearer in a degree of the Interstate which is this case
happens to be the son of the Interstate that is his own father.
➔ The argument that the son, even after the passing of Hindu succession Act, 1956
inherited the property as coparcenary property vis-a vis with his male
descendants, had a serious flaw. if this is taken to be coparcenary property and the
son take it as a karta of his family and not in his individual capacity, it would
mean that not only grandson but also great grandson and a great great grandson(as
a male descendent up to four generation would acquire right by birth in it as a
coparcenary property )
Here it is important to understand that such a great great grandson who would
acquire by birth right in such property is not even a class II heir of the Interstate.
under the present scheme of succession and he’s basically covered as agnates and
this will be totally wrong and against the scheme of this Act.
➔ All Class I heir inherits together. if the property is in the hands of the son’s
coparcenary property while of the other it is their separate property it would mean
that within class I heir category there are two subclasses, one comprising three
heirs who take the share as coparcenary property with respect to the male
descendants that is son, son of a predeceased son, son of predeceased son of a
predeceased son. and for other it will take it as their separate property.
JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY

INTRODUCTION
As the terms indicate, the property held jointly by the members of the family is called
joint family property. Under Hindu law this term has a special significance as the
property is called joint family property, all members of the joint family have one or the
other rights over it which are not equal with respect to each other. all members of the
joint family cannot contribute towards this joint family corpus. It is owned collectively
by the coparceners while non- coparceners have the right of maintenance out of joint
family funds and the right of residents in the joint family house. Funeral expenses of joint
family members are met with joint family funds which are also used for performing other
essential religious ceremonies. female members and non-coparcener male members
cannot throw their separate property into the common stock.The coparcenary property is
jointly owned by coparceners. There is a collective title, collective possessions, collective
rights of disposal over it. Therefore, there is no general right in favour of any coparcenary
property to transfer it. no co-owner in a coparcenary property has a definite right, title
and interest in any particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand, he has the
right title and interest in each and every part and parcel of joint family property. Thus a
judgement or an order passed against one Co owner in respect of joint family property
would also bind other coparceners as well.
This property is also called an unobstructed property because a son’s, son’s son’s, son’s
son’s son’s (after 2005 amendment) daughters as well acquired the right of ownership by
birth and hence a right to ask for its partition and demarcation of this share at anytime.
The Coparcenary property is owned by coparceners but is enjoyed by not only
coparceners but also by other members of joint families who are not its owner that are
non coparceners. So means to say that title vest in coparcenary but this right of enjoyment
is with all the joint family members.
SOURCES OF JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY
1.Property received in partition
where the coparcener separates from the joint family after affecting a partition. the
character of property or his share in Coparcenary property with respect to his son
or daughter but with respect to his father and brothers from whom he separated his
separate property
Case- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. NARAYAN RAO18, the supreme court
held that on the death of the karta, though his widow would take a share by virtue
of section 6, Hindu Succession Act,1956 but that doesn't mean that family stands
divided till the widow takes away her share of members effecting a partition, the
family will remain a joint family.
● Sole surviving Coparcener
When a single male Hindu obtains his share at a partition and separates, he holds
the property as a sole surviving Coparcener. When he gets married the property in
his hand would be called joint family property and when he gets a son or daughter(
after 2005 amendment) he or she would acquire right by birth in his property. the
Patna High Court tell that in case of sole surviving Coparcener there is a
temporary reduction of a male member to one and character of the property that
was previously coparcenary property would be maintained during the time he
holds the property as sole surviving Coparcener till that time property is his
separate property, so during this time he can dispose of their property according to
his sweet will.
● After born son
In a joint family, there was a partition between all the Coparcener. the property
which is in the hands of the father now is his separate property but thereafter if the
father gets his son after the separation then he will form a coparcenary with that
after born son so means to say that after born son is having a coparcenary interest
in that share which is in the hand of this father. On the other hand if at the time of
partition father refused to take a share then in such a case is after her son is having
a right to get the partition reopened.

18 AIR 1985 S.C.716

2 .Doctrine of blending
The word “blend” means to mix that is to share along with others. no doubt a
coparcener is having an interest by birth in the coparcenary property, but that does
not mean that he cannot own his separate property.So as they are joint, no
coparcener is having any power to convert any portion of the undivided into his
separate property by a unilateral act but is competent to convert his separate
property into coparcenary property without taking anybody’s permission. where
some coparcenary property is in existence then a coparcener can throw his
separate property into joint family property with the specific intention of merging
it or blending it with the same and after blending the property it becomes joint
family property the word blend in itself is clear that is to mix so means to say if a
person wants to blend his separate property with the joint family property then
there must be the existence of the joint family property. For example, a Hindu
joint family composed of a father and his two sons and two daughters and all of
them jointly owned a house. adjoining the house there was a plot of father which
he had purchased using his separate income. The father with the specific intention
of throwing or blending the plot made a declaration that henceforth the plot would
be part of the house and would belong to all coparceners. the father would lose his
exclusive control over it.
it is important to note that blending of property must be in favour of entire body
of coparceners and once the property is thrown into common stock it is an
irrevocable act and it cannot be taken out of joint family property to be again as
separate property of the coparcener who has earlier thrown into joint family
property.
➔ Difference between blending and converting
There is a difference between blending and converting, it is not necessary that for
converting the separate property into coparcenary property there must exist a joint
family property or even that there should be at least two coparceners. whereas
family does not possess any property at all a coparcener can by declaration
convert his separate property into joint family property and where there are more
than one Coparcener all of them may pull their separate property if they so desire
to form a joint family property corpus.
➔ Intention is most important for blending,
Merely allowing the members of the family to use the property jointly by the
owner of a property is not sufficient to hold that he waives his right over his own
property and has put the same in joint stock. without satisfying the ingredients of
the doctrine of blending, the property cannot be treated as joint family property.
 For example, if a house is constructed by Hindu male which is his separate
property and he lives in this house with his sons, brother and daughter who may
not own a house might be permitted by him to occupy a portion of this house.
Neither Son nor any other relatives can claim as a matter of right residence or
ownership of the house, as their occupation is with the permission of the owner
and such permission cannot be equated with the intention of the owner to blend his
separate property into joint family property.
When separate property is either converted into Coparcenary property or blended
with already existing joint family property, an unequivocal and clear declaration is
sufficient and it need not to be accompanied with a registered or stamped
instrument as it is neither a gift nor a disposition19
➔ Case- GOWLI V. COMMR.OF GIFT TAX20The act of throwing into common
stock is a unilateral act. when a coparcener throws his separate property in the
common stock, he makes no gift and there is no donor or donee and therefore the
provisions relating to gift in the Transfer Of Property Act21 do not apply.
➔ A female except daughter cannot throw her property into a joint family by
blending. The reason for this is that the ownership of Coparcenary property is
with the Coparcener and a female except daughters is not a coparcener. A
blending signifies sharing and a female is incapable of sharing her title with other
coparceners. Her property when thrown into common stock would be a gift to the
joint family as a whole and would not be converted under blending.
➔ when a coparcener added separate property to joint family property that was to be
mortgaged in order to secure a higher loan for the benefits of the joint family
members. The property so added would maintain the character of separate
property of the coparcenary as no blending can be implied.
In one another case the court held that where in the ancestral home an upper
storeys is constructed by one member and will not be considered as a separate
property of that member.
So we can confer that separate property can be converted into joint family property
through :
1. Doctrine of blending.
2. In the case of Sole Survivorship it may again convert into joint family
property if another Coparcenary later comes into existence.
3. By converting.

19 MALLESAPPA V. MALLAPPA,AIR 1961 S.C. 1268

20 AIR 1970 S.C. 1722
21 See section 122 of Transfer Of Property Act,1882
 3. Doctrine of detriment
General rule is that any property acquired with the help of a joint family funds or
detriment on joint family property would itself take the character of joint family
property. It is irrespective of the fact whether it is the karta who acquired it or any
other coparcener. therefore all profits, purchases, savings, etc. if the nucleus came
from joint family then it will belong to the family and not to an individual
member in the absence of evidence that father had separate property or that he had
acquired the property with his own income, the property acquired would be treated
as joint family property. For example, if the karta instead of taking loans sells a
part of the joint family property and the sale proceeds and renovates the house
where the joint families residing that is detrimental to the property then such
property will be a joint family property.
➔ When the total investment is from joint family property: where the joint
family property is sold and the total funds are used to purchase another piece of
property or it is invested in a profitable manner, then character of property so
acquired or profit so earned would be that of joint family property irrespective of
the fact that in acquiring it the skill, labour or judgement of the acquirer were also
major factors. For example, a joint family land is sold by the father having two
sons and the sales proceeds are invested by him in Shares and stock or in a manner
which requires study and knowledge of market development and timely action.
The father makes huge profits and purchased immovable property with these
profit.s the character of the property would be joint family property and the sons
would have the right to affect a partition of the same, they so desires.
Case SWARNLATA V. KULBHUSHAN LAL ( 2014 Delhi High Court )
In this case, the family came from Pakistan. The family was having a huge
property in Pakistan and they came to India and settled down in Delhi and
furnished the claim for allocation of property with the ministry of rehabilitation in
lieu of the one that they had left behind in Pakistan. The property which was given
to them is the joint family property and all the incomes earned from that property
will be Joint family income.
➔ Property acquired partly with joint family funds and partly with separate
property: in a case, Allahabad High Court held that if a person takes the aid of
any portion of the joint family property however small it is maybe to acquire
property, the property thus acquired cannot be claimed as self acquired property.22
22 Mangal Singh vs Harkesh, AIR 1958 All 42
 ➔ Temporary use of joint family property or taking it by way of loan:
where a coparcener takes a loan from a joint family fund, starts a business and
repays the loan. The business and earning thereafter will constitute his separate
property.
➔ Improvement of separate property with the funds of joint family: where the
joint family funds are used by family members to improve his separate property,
such improvements are to be detriment of the joint family property would result in
the alteration of the character of the separate property and give it the colour of
joint family property. For example, karta sells a piece of family land with the sale
proceeds, and carries out substantial repairs and improvements in his separate
house. The money applied is not by way of loan. This property is now the joint
family property and Karta cannot no longer claim it as a separate property.
➔ Improvements of joint family property with separate property: where a Hindu
built the upper story of his ancestral house using his separate funds such upper
story would constitute a part of the home therefore would become a coparcenary
property.

4 .Gains of learning Act

According to Katyayana’s enumeration, gains of learning fall under following
categories:
● anything gained by proving superior learning after a prize has been offered.
● anything obtained from pupils or by officiating as a priest or for answering any
question or for determining a point in dispute or by display of knowledge or by
success in debate.
● anything gained from superiority in learning or acquired by art or science.
● anything obtained by boast of learning or by performance of any sacrifice.23

So the Gains of learning means those gains which are made on account of some
education or training that a coparcener has received. The general rule is that any property
or income acquired with the aid of joint family funds or with the detriment to the joint
family property would in itself become joint family property. But after the passing of
Hindu gains of learning act 1930 there is a change, the word “gains of learning” means
those gains which are made on account of education or training that a coparcener has
received from the common purse of the joint family property.

23 diwan, Dr. Paras. “The Mitakshara Joint Family.” Modern Hindu Law, Rev.ed, Faridabad (Haryana), Allahabad
Law Agency, 2018,pp.308
 ● Before the passing of the 1930 Act: our courts made a distinction between
ordinary education and technological education. If a person had received technical
education through funds from the joint family property, the consequent earnings of
such a person was treated as joint family property. but the same rule was not
applicable in case of ordinary education, so if a person received ordinary education
at the expense of joint family property then the earnings from such aggregation
were treated as a separate property.
● After passing in 1930 :after the passing of this Act, any education which is
technical or ordinary is taken with the help of funds from the joint family property
even then this consequent earning of such a person is to be treated as a separate
property.

5. Doctrine of accretion
accretions mean:
● accumulation of income of the joint family property.
● property purchased or acquired with the income of the joint family property.
● proceeds of the sale of joint family property or property purchased out of such sale
deeds.
 As a general rule, savings and profits made or earned out of the sale of or using a
coparcenary property would also form a part of coparcenary property. Where
money is invested and the transaction brings in profit that profits would be
accreted and their character would be a coparcenary property. Interest realised by a
member in possession of the family fund would be in itself a joint family property.
For example, where the karta construct flats on the family land with the help of
joint family funds and sell them at huge profits, the profit should belong to the
family nor to the karta alone. On the other hand if kartar gives a specific sum of
money to a member of joint family to be used by him for his maintenance or
personal use, any savings or profits made out of these funds would not constitute
joint family property and would be the separate property of that member.

Case- ANUP SINGH V. HARBANS KAUR24,it was established that the income
of joint family property was very small and inadequate and that the coparcener
during his lifetime made substantial earnings on account of his salary and other
emoluments in the service of the maharaja, from whom he had purchased the
property in question, had gifted it absolutely to his wife during his lifetime,it was
held that these properties were his separate properties.

6.Recovered joint family property

when one coparcener without any assistance from joint family funds or from his
fellow coparceners recovers ancestral property which has been lost without any
possibility of recovery,the property so recovered will be
● The separate property of the recover if the recoverer is the karta of the
family irrespective of the fact whether property is immovable or movable.
● if the recoverer is any other coparcener and the property is movable, the
property will be the separate property of the recoverer.
● if the recoverer is any other coparcener and the property is immovable, the
recoverer will get one-fourth of it as his separate property and the rest will
become joint family property in which all members, including the
recovering coparcener, will have an interest.

24 AIR 1958 P H .116

BIBLIOGRAPHY
● diwan, Dr. Paras. “The Mitakshara Joint Family.” Modern Hindu Law, Rev.ed,
Faridabad (Haryana), Allahabad Law Agency, 2018, pp. 295–312.

● Sharma, Sunil. “Concept of Gift under Hindu Law.” LawPage, lawpage.in/hindu-

law/part-2/gift-under-hindu-law. Accessed 12 June 2021.

● “Women’s Right to Property.” Deccan Herald [Bangalore,Karnataka], 9 July

2009, www.deccanherald.com/content/12717/womens-right-property.html.

● Bansal, Anil. “Whether Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Has Abolished the Concept
of Joint Family Property of Hindu Law?” Law Finder, 15 Nov. 2017,
www.lawfinderlive.com/Articles-1/Article19.htm?
AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.

● Bare Acts Live. ChawlaPublications, www.bareactslive.com/ACA/ACT039.HTM.

Accessed 10 June 2021.

● Indiankanoon. www.indiankanoon.com. Accessed 5 June 2021.

● Verma, Ayush. “How Does Hindu Law Stratify Property.” Ipleaders, 30 June
2020, blog.ipleaders.in/classification-property-hindu-law.