FAMILY LAW

PROJECT REPORT

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL

STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY,
CHANDIGARH

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

ROBIN SINGH MALIK PROF. DR. JAI MALA
Roll NO. 315/21 UILS, PU
SEM 4 SECTION C CHANDIGARH
UILS, PU
CHANDIGARH
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I wish to thank the Almighty God for his

immense blessings and pray to him to continue to guide me
on the path of my committed calling. I deem it my proud
privilege to express my indebtedness and sincere thanks to
all those who have in various ways, helped me in the
successful completion of the project and without their
invaluable help this project would not have been a reality.
I convey my sincere gratitude to my teacher Prof. Dr. Jai
Mala, University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh who
has been chosen me for this project and provided me help
with knowledge, inspiration and information. It would not be
possible for me to complete this project without her
encouragement, guidance, valuable suggestions, and
affectionate help.
I owe my regards to the entire faculty of the University
Institute of Legal Studies, from where I have learnt the basics
of Law and whose informal discussions, intellectual support
helped me in the entire duration of this work.

ROBIN SINGH MALIK

Roll No. 315/21
SEM 4 B.A L.L. B
 RULES
OF
PARTION
 DIVISION OF PROPERTY BY METES
AND BOUNDS

Partition by metes and bounds. Partition in its larger

sense consists in a division by which the share of each
coparcener with respect to all or any of the joint
property is fixed, and once shares are defined, the
partition in the sense of severance of status or
disruption of joint status is complete, but after the
shares are so ascertained, the parties might elect
either to have a partition of their status by metes and
bounds, i.e., actual division of property or continue to
live together and enjoy their property in common as
before. Whether they did one or the other will affect
the mode of enjoyment, but not the tenure of the
property or their interest in it. This is a situation where
joint ownership has been turned into joint possession
and enjoyment until the physical partition, takes place
according to the shares standing in the name of sharers
at the date of severance of status. In short, partition by
metes and bounds means the physical division of joint
family property.

Taking of Accounts
The Mitakshara karta is not liable to accounts and no
coparcener can even at the time of partition, call upon
the karta to account his past dealings with the joint
family property unless charges of fraud,
misappropriation or conversion are made against him.
However, when a coparcener suing for partition is
entirely excluded from the enjoyment of property, he
can ask for accounts. It is also an established rule that
no coparcener is entitled to any credit on account of
his having smaller family less amount was spent on
him. In the reverse case, the share of a coparcener
cannot be debited.
What is meant by taking of accounts is an enquiry into
the joint family assets. It means preparing an inventory
of all the items of the joint family property. However,
all advances made to a coparcener which he would not
be entitled as a coparcener, such as money advanced
for the payment of his debts are to be accounted for
and would be treated as part of joint family funds.

After the severance of status has taken place, the karta

is bound to render accounts of all expenditure and
income in the same manner as a trustee or an agent is
bound to render accounts. This means that from the
date of the severance of status, the karta is bound to
account for all mesne profits. For instance, when
severance of status is brought about by filing a suit, the
karta is liable to account for mesne profits from the
date of the filing of the suit. When a coparcener seeks
an account of mesne profits, what he is seeking is only
an account of the profits of property subsequent to
severance of status; profits are appurtenant to his right
to a share of the family property."
 Rules relating to division of
property
In the old Hindu law, two modes of division of property
were recognized: Putra bhaga and patni bhaga. When a
division of property is by the number of sons, it is
known as the putra bhaga. When a division of property
is according to the number of wives, it is known as the
patni bhaga.1
For example, if a Hindu has two wives, P and Q and
from P he has three sons, A, B and C and from Q he has
two sons E and F. If property is divided in accordance
with the former rule, each son will take 1/5. If the
property is divided in accordance with the patni bhaga
rule, sons of P together will take 1/2 and sons of O
together will take 1/2. In modern Hindu law, the putra.
bhaga rule operates and patni bhaga rule is obsolete.
The Hindu sages also recognised another practice
which came to be known as the jeshta bhaga doctrine.
Under this doctrine, the karta or the eldest brother
look double share. The rule was propounded by the
Smritikars, but the Commentators and Digest writers
took the view that unequal partition is forbidden in the
1
Ghumraparvathy v. Bhagvathy
Kali age. In modern Hindu law, this doctrine is not
recognized. “As between brothers or other relations,
absolute equality is now the invariable rule in all
States, unless perhaps, where some special family
custom to the contrary is made out "
In a partition by metes and bounds, the shares are
allotted to coparceners based on following rules:

1. DIVISION BETWEEN FATHER AND SON

When partition takes place between father and
sons, the rule is that each son takes a share equal
to the share of the father. For example, A has
three sons, B, C, D. Each of them, i.e., A, B, C and D
will take ¼ in the joint family property.
2. DIVISION BETWEEN BROTHERS
When a coparcenary consists of brothers and a
partition takes place between them, the rule is
that they take equal shares in the joint family
property. For instance, a coparcenary consists of
five brothers A, B, C, D and E, each of them on
partition, will take 1/5 share.

3. WHEN DIVISION TAKES PLACE AMONG

BRANCHES
When a coparcenary consists of several branches
and a partition takes place, the rule is that each
branch takes per stirpes (i.e., according to the
stock) as regards every other branch, and the
members of each branch take per capita (i.e., per
 head) as regards each other. this rule may be
explained by the following example:

In this example, a coparcenary consists of three

generations father, sons, and grandsons. If partition
takes place among the coparceners, according to Rule
3, partition will be per stirpes. This means that in a
partition where there are branches, there are two
steps in partition: (a) the division of properties will,
first, take place between the father and sons, i.e..,
between the father and the heads of branches. The
shares allotted to the heads of branches will be the
shares of the respective branches. Thus, in the above
illustration, in the first step of partition, properties will
be divided between A, S, S1 and S2. If we apply Rule (1),
viz., each son takes a share equal to the share of the
father, each one of them will take 1/4 share in the
property. Although A's 1/4 is A's individual share, 1/4
of S, S1 and S2 are not their individual share but the
share of their respective branches, (b) the next step
will be to effect partition between the members of
each branch. The second part of Rule (3) lays down
that among the members of a branch, the distribution
will be per capita (per head). Applying this rule we find
that in S's branch there are four members including
himself; if we divide ¼ share of this branch into four
shares, result will be that each of S, SS, SS1 and SS2 will
take ¼×¼ = 1/16, if we divide S1’s branch's share, we
find there are three members including S1; the share of
S1, SS3 and SS4 will be 1/4×1/3 = 1/12 each. If we divide
the share of S's branch, there being two members in
the branch each will take ¼×½ = 18.

4. DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION
Under the Mitakshara school, coparcener’s
interest devolves by survivorship. This is subject to
the rule that where a deceased coparcener leaves
male issues, the latter represent their ancestor in
partition, and take his share, provided that such
issues are within the limit of coparcenary. For
example: