Date and Time: Monday, 11 March 2024 6:46:00PM IST

Job Number: 219148252

Document (1)

1. CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY
Client/Matter: -None-

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
 CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY
Kusum & Poonam Pradhan Saxena - Family Law
Poonam Pradhan Saxena

Kusum & Poonam Pradhan Saxena - Family Law > Kusum & Poonam Pradhan Saxena - Family
Law > VOLUME II

CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of understanding the concept of Mitakshara coparcenary was spiritual in nature. A coparcener
in relation to the father is a person who can offer a funeral cake to him. This capability to offer spiritual salvation by
the performance of funeral rites was with the son, son of a son (grandson), and son of a son of a son (great-grand-
son)1 and as a consequence of it they were conferred a right by birth in the property of the father. This religious
aspect that associated it primarily with relationships and spiritual benefits and not merely from the property
perspective were totally sidelined later by the legal aspect. The revenue authorities view coparcenery purely from
the property angle. Presently it is understood to ascertain the rights and obligations of the members in the joint
family property that is also called the ancestral property or the coparcenary property.1

A person is the exclusive owner of his self-acquisitions and no one else, including his family members, have the
legal power to restrict his rights over the separate property, save in accordance with the provisions of law. However,
under Hindu law, where a person possesses an interest in ancestral or coparcenary property he is not the sole
owner of it and his son, son of his son (grandson), and son of his son of his son (great-grandson) acquire a right by
birth in this property.2 All such sons, grandsons and great-grandsons irrespective of their numbers will be
coparceners with him having joint ownership in this property. Presently the concept of coparcenary is linked with the
ownership in this property.

CONCEPT : UNDER CLASSICAL LAW

The system of coparcenary is a narrower institution within a joint family comprising only male members3. This group
of persons, unlike the joint family, is related to each other only by blood or through a valid adoption. No person can
by marriage and no stranger can by agreement become a member of coparcenary, as it is a creation of law.4 Under
the classical law, no female could be a member of coparcenary. The seniormost male member is called the last
holder of the property and from him a continuous chain of three generations of male members form the
coparcenary. These males up to three generations from the present/last holder of the property have a right by birth
in the joint Hindu family property and have a right to ask for partition of the same. Thus in Fig. 3.1, where the family
comprised the father, F, his wife, W, two married sons, S1 and S2, with their wives, W 1 and W 2 and their sons, S3
and S4 and two unmarried daughters, D 3 and D 4; all will be the members of the joint family, but as far as the
coparcenary is concerned, father’s wife, lineal descendant’s wives and the two daughters will not be members of
the coparcenary but the father, his two sons, and grandsons would be members of the coparcenary and will have a
right by birth in the ownership of this property.

Fig. 3.1
 Page 2 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

FORMATION OF MITAKSHARA COPARCENARY

A single person cannot form a coparcenary. There should be at least two male members to constitute it. Like a
Hindu joint family, the presence of a seniormost male member is a must to start a coparcenary. As aforesaid, a
minimum of two members is required to start and even continue a coparcenary. Moreover, the relationship of father
and son is essential for starting a coparcenary. For e.g., as shown in Fig. 3.2, a Hindu male obtains his share at the
time of partition from his father and then gets married. Till a son is born he is the sole male in this family and the
income in his hands i.e., the share he had received at partition may be assessed as the joint family income, but he
alone will not form a coparcenary. On the birth of his son, a coparcenary comprising him and his son will come into
existence. When this son gets married and a son is born to him, the coparcenary will comprise the father F, his son
S and his grandson SS. If the son dies, the coparcenary will not come to an end and will comprise the father and
the son of the deceased son. Where the family consists of the father, F, his son S, his grandson SS, his great-
grandson SSS, all four will be coparceners.

Fig. 3.2

On the death of S, the coparcenary will consist of F, SS and SSS. If SS dies, it will continue with F and SSS. Thus
there can be a coparcenary consisting of father and son or father and his grandson or the father and his great-
grandson or of all of them together.

Coparcenary is not limited to four male members but is limited to four generations of male members irrespective of
their numbers. In Fig. 3.3, F, his sons, S1, S2 and S3, their sons, S4, S5, S6 and S7 and their sons S8, S9, S10
and S11 will be coparceners with the rest of the male members.

Fig. 3.3

COPARCENARY NOT LIMITED TO FOUR GENERATIONS FROM THE

COMMON ANCESTOR
Where a coparcenary is started, the seniormost male member with his lineal male descendants till four generations
(inclusive of him) of male line will form a coparcenary. If there is a lineal male descendant in the fifth generation he
will be a member of the joint family but will not be a coparcener as he is removed from the seniormost male
member by more than four generations. In the examples cited in Fig. 3.4, F and his lineal male descendents from
S1 to S6 (till seven generations) are members of his joint family. Here F, S1, S2 and S3 will be coparceners. But
this does not mean that S4 will never be a coparcener. On the death of F, S1 will become the last holder of the
property and if four generations are counted from him S4 will be included in the coparcenary. Similarly, on the death
 Page 3 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

of S1, S5 will become a coparcener as instead of S1, S2 will become the last holder of the property. S6 will become
a coparcener on the death of S2, as from S3, who will become the last holder of the property, he will be within four
generations. The rule is that so long as one is not removed from the last holder of the property by more than four
generations he will be a coparcener.5 Like in a joint family, in a coparcenary upper links are removed and lower
links are added, and the coparcenary may continue indefinitely provided there are at least two male members
(coparceners) maintaining the joint family status.

Fig. 3.4(i)Fig. 3.4(ii)Fig. 3.4(iii)Fig. 3.4(iv)

Fig. 3.5(i)Fig. 3.5(ii)

 Page 4 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

Fig. 3.5(iii)Fig. 3.5(iv)

In Fig. 3.5(i), where the father has two sons S1 and S2, with S3, S4 and S5 and S6, S7 and S8 as the sons of S1
and S2 respectively, the coparcenary will consist of F, S1, S2, S3, S4, S6 and S7. S5 and S8 are removed from F
by more than four generations and they will not be included in the coparcenary. Suppose S2 dies, the coparcenary
will consist of F, S1, S3, S4, S6 and S7 [Fig. 3.5(ii)]. During the life time of F, S6 and S7 also die one after the other.
The coparcenary will now consist of F, S1, S3 and S4 only [Fig. 3.5 (iii)]. S8 will not be included in the coparcenary
because he is still in the fifth generation as F is alive. If F dies now S1 will become the last holder of the property
and the coparcenary will now comprise his three lineal male descendants i.e., S3, S4 and S5 will also be included in
the coparcenary as counting from S1, he will be in the fourth generation [Fig. 3.5(iv)]. But S8 will not be a
coparcener as the coparcenary property has gone to the parallel branch due to the death of his three immediate
ancestors in the male line. However, as in Fig. 3.5(v) if F dies before the death of S2, S6 and S7 then S8 will be
included in the coparcenary as his links with the last holder of the property existed.

Fig. 3.5(v)

SOLE SURVIVING COPARCENER

When all the coparceners die leaving behind only one of them, the surviving coparcener is called the sole surviving
coparcener. As a minimum of two male members are required to form a coparcenary, a sole surviving coparcener
cannot form a coparcenary all by himself. If another coparcener comes into existence the coparcenary will be
revived but if that does not happen, then the sole surviving coparcener is entitled to treat the coparcenary property
as his separate property and enjoy absolute power over its disposal. However, if there are female members who
have a right to maintenance out of this property, then before or after the transfer of the property, a provision has to
be made for their maintenance by the sole surviving coparcener. On the death of the sole surviving coparcener the
property does not go by doctrine of survivorship as no other coparcener is there, but it will go to the legal heirs of
the deceased. If during the lifetime of the deceased the female members had a right of maintenance out of this
property these rights will be carried along with the property to the heirs and such heirs will be under an obligation to
provide maintenance to the female members out of the property.
 Page 5 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

Fig. 3.6(i)Fig. 3.6(ii)

For instance, a coparcenary consisted of F, and his lineal male descendants in the direct male line from S1 to S5.
The coparcenary will comprise F, S1, S2 and S3. S4 and S5 are removed by more than four generations from the
last holder of the property and therefore will not be coparceners [See Fig. 3.6(i)]. If S1, S2 and S3 die one after the
other, F will become the sole surviving coparcener and now if F dies, this coparcenary comes to an end and the
property in his hands will be treated as his separate property and will go by inheritance to his legal heirs [See Fig.
3.6(ii)].

WHY IS COPARCENARY LIMITED

The coparcenary is limited to three generations of lineal male descendants of the last holder of the property only.
According to the tenets of Hinduism, only descendents upto three generations can offer spiritual ministration to the
ancestor. Besides only males can be coparceners because the females invariably leave the father’s house and
assume domestic and spiritual duties in their husband’s house.

WOMEN AS COPARCENERS
Under Mitakshara coparcenary, women cannot be coparceners.6 A wife under Hindu law has a right of maintenance
out of her husband’s property yet she is not a coparcener with him.7 A widow of a deceased coparcener is not a
coparcener and therefore cannot be treated as the Karta of the family. Consequently, an alienation made by her will
not be binding on the family members and will bind her own share in the property.8Even a widow succeeding to her
deceased husband’s share in the joint family under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 is not a
coparcener.9 However, even though she cannot be a manager or Karta, yet she can be assessed as the head of
the joint family for the purposes of income tax.10 A mother is neither a coparcener with her sons11 nor with her
daughter even if they happen to be devadasis.12 Similarly, a mother-in-law cannot be a coparcener with her
daughter-in-law.13

WOMEN AS COPARCENERS UNDER THE HINDU SUCCESSION

(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005
Presently a daughter has been introduced as a coparcener. However, a mother and all females who become
members of a Hindu joint family upon their marriage to male coparceners are not coparceners themselves.

ILLEGITIMATE SONS
A Mitakshara coparcenary consists of only the legitimate male offspring of the lineal male descendants. Illegitimate
sons are not coparceners but members of joint family, and if a partition takes place between the father and the
sons, they can be allotted a share.14 The father can give an equal share to the illegitimate son. However after the
death of the father, if a partition takes place, the illegitimate son will get half the share of a legitimate son. The
Hindu Marriage Act confers legitimacy on children born out of void and voidable marriages to enable them to inherit
the property of their parents, but this legitimacy does not enable the children to inherit the property of any other
relations of their parents. Children born of live in relationship are akin to illegitimate children and would not be
coparceners15.

SANE AND INSANE PERSON

An insane male member of the family is not a coparcener and his rights are temporarily suspended till he recovers,
but if a partition takes place he has to be allotted a share.16 There can be a coparcenary, under Mitakshara law,
 Page 6 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

with a lunatic member. A coparcener gets his right in the coparcenary property by birth and there appears nothing in
the texts irrevocably to extinguish that right on the supervening insanity. On the other hand, texts show that
although such a person may not have a right to share or claim a partition, when another coparcener disrupts the
joint family status, such right is given to him on the malady being cured. Further, the sons of such disqualified
persons are not excluded from taking a share in the coparcenary property. The texts providing for the reopening of
the partition on the insane being cured clearly show that his rights remain in abeyance and are not irrevocably lost
in the case of supervening insanity. When an insane member himself may not have the volition to declare a
separation, there is no reason to hold that insanity takes away the right of another sane member of the coparcenary
to declare an intention to disrupt the family status. It cannot be disputed that if there are two sane brothers and one
insane brother, it is open to one of the sane brothers to declare his intention to sever the status with the result that
the two brothers can partition the property for the time being among themselves. If such a right exists in favour of
the two sane brothers, there appears no reason why it cannot exist when the coparcenary consists of only a sane
and an insane person.17

OUSTER FROM COPARCENARY

A coparcener who renounces his religion and converts to some other faith ceases to be a member of the joint family
and is therefore also ousted from the coparcenary. Similar is the case where he gets married to a non-Hindu under
the Special Marriage Act, 1954.18 However, in both these abovementioned cases, his rights in the coparcenary
property will not be forfeited and he is entitled to take his share of the property. A Hindu man who gets married to a
non-Hindu cannot form a coparcenary with his son.19

A minor coparcener, if given in adoption by his competent parent, is deemed to be dead for the biological family
from the date he is given in adoption to another family.20 His interest in the coparcenary property prior to his
adoption will be taken by the surviving coparceners and when he goes to the adoptive family he goes there without
any property but will acquire an interest in the coparcenary property of the adoptive family with the adoptive father
as his son from the date of adoption as from that date he is deemed to be born in the adoptive family.

COPARCENARY BETWEEN A HINDU MAN AND HIS SON BORN OF A NON-

HINDU WIFE
Rosie Marie v. CWT21. 1970 Mad 249 .

A Hindu male getting married to a non-Hindu female under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is ousted from the
coparcenary. But, can he form a coparcenary with the son born to him from a non-Hindu wife? The High Court of
Madras considered this question in Rosie Marie’s case,22 and held that as such a son is a legitimate son and as per
the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 195423his succession rights on the death of the father will be governed
by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and not by the Hindu Successionact.

... this would not injunct a Hindu parent from treating a legitimate son of his, born in lawful wedlock as per the provisions of
the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as an undivided member of the Hindu joint family. This joint family will be so created by the
father by an option exercised for that purpose by himself and no sooner such option is exercised by him, there springs from
it a Hindu joint family, which has to be recognized and whose legal entity has to be given effect to in accordance with the
provisions of the Hindu law both traditional and statutory and a fortiorari by the taxing statute as well.

Like in this case, in a majority of cases the concept and constitution of the joint family and coparcenary has been
discussed and explained by the Indian courts while adjudicating upon revenue matters. It must be noted here, that
the court did not discuss what was the kind of property in the hands of the father and from where he had acquired
it? That, it was separate property in his hands was obvious. It is submitted that the decision appears to be incorrect
for the following reasons:

(i) Since the joint family and coparcenary are essentially concepts available under Hindu law having no
parallels under any other law or systems; in a coparcenary the members must be Hindus, and the son here
may not be a Hindu in all cases. He will be a Hindu only when he is being brought up as a Hindu and
therefore in the first place it is difficult to comprehend that a Hindu man can form a coparcenary with his
son whose religion is conditional on his being brought up as a Hindu.
 Page 7 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

(ii) The court noted here that it was later that he declared his son to be a coparcener with him and so he can
constitute a joint family. It must be remembered that in law a Hindu joint family or a coparcenary does not
come into existence in accordance with the wishes or declaration by the father. It is a presumption that
arises in law. Its coming into existence does not depend upon the will of a person by a mere declaration
that can be exercised at his option or convenience.
(iii) The decision throws open questions that are difficult to answer. The court noted that on the death of the
father it is not the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but the Indian Succession Act, 1925 that would govern
succession to his property. Is the institution of coparcenary recognised under the Indian Succession Act,
1925? There is only one kind of property recognised under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and that is
separate property according to which in case of the death of a male, 1/3rd of the property goes to the
widow and 2/3rd will go to the son. But if, as according to the court, the deceased constituted a
coparcenary with his son, the judiciary in fact ended up changing the law of succession in clear
contradiction to a specific provision of a statute. If there was a coparcenary between the father and the son
here on the death of the father the property will not be distributed between the son and the widow of the
deceased but will come to the son by the doctrine of survivorship to the complete exclusion of the widow.
Deprivation of her rights by a mere declaration in presence of a statute that gives her an absolute
ownership by way of inheritance does not appear to be proper at all.

Accordingly it is submitted that a Hindu man cannot constitute a coparcenary with his son born of a non-Hindu wife.
In Margaret Palai v. Savitri Palai, 24 a Christian woman got married to a Hindu man under the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, it was held that this marriage under Hindu law was not permissible and the woman would not even be called
his legally wedded wife. She would neither be entitled to a share in the coparcenary property held by her partner
nor would she be empowered to succeed to his separate property.

COPARCENARY WITHIN A COPARCENARY

There is no limitation on the number of members that a coparcenary may have. There can be a big coparcenary
consisting of father, his sons, grandsons and great grand sons. There can be a coparcenary within a coparcenary
comprising sons and their descendants also. If the father has separate property, on his death the sons inherit the
property jointly. Now if a child is born to one of the sons he will form a coparcenary within a coparcenary. For
example, in Fig. 3.7, the family comprises the father F, his two sons S1 and S2. On the death of the father the two
sons will inherit the property jointly. On the birth of S3, a coparcenary will come into existence between S1 and S2
and within this coparcenary a smaller coparcenary comprising S1 and S3 will bethere.

Fig. 3.7

COPARCENARY PROPERTY
Under Mitakshara law two kinds of properties are contemplated, that can be acquired by a male member viz., the
joint family property or the coparcenary property and the separate property. For acquiring an interest in coparcenary
property there is no obstruction by way of the wishes of the father or the consent of other coparceners. It is a right
of the coparcener and cannot be defeated by the acts of the other sharers of the property. If there is coparcenary
property, a male child taking birth in the family will become the owner of the property. This is in contrast to the
succession to the separate property of an individual. As a person has absolute power of disposal over the separate
properties, a son’s right to inherit the property may be defeated by the acts of the father as during his life time he
may transfer it, disinheriting his own son. In other words, there is no guarantee that he would inherit the property of
 Page 8 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

the father. The father’s power of disposal and the probability of exercising such powers to the detriment of the son
are an obstruction in his way of inheriting the separate property.
Ownership of Coparcenary Property

The ownership in the coparcenary property is with the coparceners collectively but it is subject to the rights of the
female members and other joint family member’s rights of maintenance that includes unmarried daughter’s right to
marriage expenses. As no female could be a coparcener, she could not become the owner of coparcenary property.
Minority is not a bar to its ownership, as the moment a coparcener is born he gets an interest in the coparcenary
property. So long as the coparceners are joint, the title to the coparcenary property is also joint. It is demarcated
and becomes exclusive only when a partition takes place and the property is divided among the members entitled
to it.

INCIDENTS OF COPARCENARY
(i)Four Generation Rule

The lineal male descendants of a person, up to third generation (excluding him), acquire on birth, an interest in the
coparcenary property held by him.
(ii) Creation of Law

Like a joint family, coparcenary is also a creation of law and cannot be formed by an agreement between the
parties.
(iii) Only Males

No stranger can be introduced in the coparcenary. Only a male child25, born in the family or validly adopted, can
become a coparcener .
(iv) Acquisition of Interest by Birth

A coparcener in a joint family is born with an interest in the coparcenary property which means that the moment he
is born in the family he gets a right by birth in the ownership of the coparcenary property. Thus, if the family
comprises the father and his two sons, all three of them have an interest in the coparcenary property. When another
son is born he also becomes a sharer in the property jointly with the rest of the coparceners bybirth.
(v) Unity of Possession and Community of Interest

One of the basic features of coparcenary is unity of possession and community of interest.26 All the coparceners
jointly own the coparcenary property and till a partition takes place and their shares are specifically demarcated no
one can claim ownership over any specific item of the coparcenary property. For example, take the case of a family
comprising the father and his three sons with all of them living in the joint family house belonging to the family along
with their wives and children. The house comprises four bedrooms. Each brother might be occupying a separate
room, with common consensus but this does not give him a right to call that specific room his exclusive property. It
is merely a convenient arrangement that does not confer an exclusive ownership in their favour of that item of the
property because the ownership of each of these rooms vests in all the coparceners collectively and not
individually.
(vi) Fluctuating and not a Specific Interest

Although a coparcener on birth gets an interest in the coparcenary property his interest in the property is not of a
specific share and is subject to fluctuation with the deaths and births of other coparceners in the family. For
example, a joint family comprises a father and two sons. Each of these coparceners is the owner of a probable one-
third of the family property. Where another son is born in the family, the share of each of them fluctuates and is
reduced to a probable one-fourth. On the birth of another son it will again fluctuate and will be further reduced to a
probable one-fifth. Similarly, on the death of a coparcener, it will fluctuate again and will be increased to a possible
one-fourth. The reason why it is called a possible share and not a specific share is that till a partition takes place the
shares can never be called specific shares.27 Thus, in a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law no
individual member of the family while it remains undivided can predicate that he has a certain definite share in the
property of the family. The rights of the coparceners are defined when there is a partition.28
(vii) Collective Enjoyment

The proceeds of undivided family must be brought to the common chest or purse and then dealt with according to
 Page 9 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

the modes of enjoyment by the members of an undivided family as till a partition takes place they hold everything
jointly.29 Coparcenary property suggests ownership by one group collectively and enjoyment and possession of it by
not only this group exclusively but by the joint family members who are outside this group.
(viii) Doctrine of Survivorship

The shares of the coparceners are not specific and are subject to change with the births and deaths of coparceners
in the family. Under the traditional or the classical law, on the death of a coparcener in the joint family his interest in
the family property is immediately taken by those coparceners who survive him and thus he leaves nothing behind
out of his interest in the coparcenary property for his female dependants.30 This phenomenon is called doctrine of
survivorship. On birth he takes an interest, enjoys it during his lifetime but leaves nothing for his female dependants
on his death.
(ix) Right to Ask for Partition

In the Mitakshara coparcenary a major coparcener can at any time ask for partition and demarcation of his share. It
is the inherent right of a coparcener and can be exercised by him at any time. Where the family members more
specifically the Karta, do not give in to his demand he can exercise the right by filing a suit for a partition in a court
of law. A minor coparcener cannot demand a partition but can file a suit for partition through his next friend in a
court of law for partition and specification of his share.
(x) Alienation of Undivided Interest

Generally, a coparcener on his own or individually is not entitled to alienate his undivided interest in the
coparcenary property.31 Only in certain specific situations the father or the Karta can alienate the undivided interest
or even the whole of the property.32

DISTINCTION BETWEEN A JOINT FAMILY AND COPARCENARY

A coparcenary is an institution within a joint family and the primary differences between the two are as follows:

(i) The joint family is a bigger institution and includes a coparcenary within it. Thus, there can be a joint family
without a coparcenary, but there can never exist a coparcenary without a Hindu joint family.
(ii) There is no presumption in law that a joint family has any property at all. However, the concept of
coparcenary is presently understood to determine the rights and obligations of the members of the joint
family over the property. This is the reason why in the joint family the seniormost male member is called
Karta33 and for the purposes of coparcenary he is described as the ‘Last holder of the property.’
(iii) Joint family is much broader than the coparcenary and there is no limitation on the number of members in
the joint family or the number of generations that it may encompass within it, but a coparcenary is limited to
four generations of male members only.
(iv) A joint family has both males and females as its members but coparcenary under the classical law
comprised only male members and no female could be a member of the coparcenary.
(v) In a joint family, members can be added by birth, adoption or even by marriage to lineal male descendants.
In a coparcenary, a member can be added only by birth or a valid adoption i.e., all coparceners must be
related to each other by blood or adoption and no person can become a coparcener by marriage.
(vi) All the members in the joint family do not have equal rights over the joint family property. Some have only a
right to maintenance out of the joint family funds or a right of residence in the family house, while others
may have a right to seek partition and have an interest in the coparcenary property. But in the coparcenary
all members have an interest in the coparcenary property by birth and have a right to demand a partition of
their interest in this property.
(vii) Disqualified coparceners are members of the joint family but not members of coparcenary even though
they may be within four generations from the last holder of the property and therefore cannot ask for
partition of the property.34
(viii) A Hindu joint family may consist of only two members or a male member and one or more female
members, but for a coparcenary a minimum of two male members is must. A single male member is called
a sole surviving coparcener. For example, a Hindu male can form a joint family with his wife but he cannot
form a coparcenary all by himself.
 Page 10 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

(ix) A joint family needs only a plurality of members who need not necessarily be males as even females in
certain situations can continue the joint status of the family. So the joint family continues even after the
death of a last male in the family so long as there is a capability of a female to add a male member in the
family but the coparcenary cannot be continued on the death of male members.

In Kamalakanta Mohapatra v. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra35, the court observed:

A joint family stands clearly distinguished from a coparcenary and if a joint family is the genus, coparcenary is the
species. No female could be a coparcener under Mitakshara and therefore a gift of joint family property cannot be
held to be void at the instance of a married daughter who was not a coparcener at the relevant time.

RIGHTS OF COPARCENERS
Coparceners have the following rights with respect to the coparcenary property:
(i) Right by Birth in the Property

Co-existing with the ability of the coparceners to perform funeral rites of the father enabling him to attain spiritual
salvation, is the right by birth in the coparcenary property. The moment a coparcener is born, he acquires an
interest in the coparcenary property which is equal to the interest of his father.36 In fact this right dates back to the
time of its conception. He gets a title to the property, a right to posses and enjoy it, and his presence puts
restrictions on the power of the Karta to alienate the joint family property.37 The acquisition of an interest is
indicative of ownership even though of a probable share in the property. For a coparcener who is introduced in the
family by a valid adoption, from the date of the adoption he is deemed to be born in the adoptive family and
acquires an interest in the coparcenary property from that date. In case of adoption by a Hindu widow to her
deceased husband, the adopted child is deemed to be related to her deceased husband from the date of the death
of the husband by the application of doctrine of relation back and if he died as an undivided coparcener, his share in
the coparcenary property will be taken by the adopted son by the doctrine of survivorship.38
(ii) Right of Common Ownership

The coparceners together possess the title to the coparcenary property. Since the joint family or coparcenary is
neither a juristic person nor a corporation capable of holding property by itself, the property is popularly called the
joint family property or coparcenary property, but is not owned by joint family or coparcenary as a unit. The
ownership vests with the members of the coparcenary. All coparceners together have a joint or common title or
ownership of this property and till they work out their shares, the extent of their ownership is not discernible.
Common or joint ownership signifies joint liabilities to pay off the debts due to the family, and also that without the
consent of the owners, the property cannot be generally alienated.
(iii) Right of Common Enjoyment of the Coparcenary Property

Unity of possession and community of interest are two basic ingredients of coparcenary. Each coparcener has a
right to possess and enjoy the coparcenary property by virtue of being a coparcener and therefore, a co-owner of it.
The right is of common enjoyment which means that till a partition by metes and bounds takes place, no coparcener
can claim an enjoyment exclusively of a specific portion of the property. He can neither predict his exact share nor
his specific portion in the property.39 Where he takes possession of a specific portion, he cannot claim the same
adversely to the rights of other coparceners. Even if he erects a building on a vacant joint family land, he cannot
claim exclusive rights to use it, and if he does that, the other coparceners can secure a decree to pull it down.40 The
court may in appropriate cases order compensation to be paid41 to the other coparceners rather than ordering a
demolition of the building. The rule is that a right to common enjoyment does not entitle an individual coparcener, so
long as he is undivided, to select one specific portion of property and build upon it as per whim and pleasure without
there being any agreement to this effect with the other members of the family. With mutual understanding or
consent, or for sheer convenience and for maintaining good relations, the coparceners may occupy different
portions of the house but that would not give them a right to treat those as their exclusive portions. The possession
by one coparcener is a possession by all and a coparcener is not entitled to claim a bigger portion of the house or a
comparatively higher maintenance on the ground that his branch has more members than the branch of the other
coparceners. Enjoyment also signifies that each coparcener along with his wife and children is entitled to a right of
residence in the family dwelling house and a right of maintenance from out of the joint family funds. The quantum of
maintenance would depend upon the discretion of Karta. Similarly, the amount to be spent on the marriage of an
unmarried daughter would be at the discretion of the Karta, and a coparcener cannot claim a specific sum of money
for this purpose.
 Page 11 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

A temporary absence of a coparcener does not mean an ouster from possession.42 Where a coparcener, due to
reasons of employment, maintains a separate residence in a different city, he retains the rights of possession and
enjoyment over the coparcenary property. A coparcener can be ousted from the enjoyment of the joint family
property only when he proves to be a nuisance to the family members or his continued presence constitutes a
threat to the peace and danger to the life of other members in the family. In such cases the father can demarcate
his share, hand it over to him and oust him from the family. However an unjustified ouster entitles him to obtain a
decree for joint possession from the court,43 although the courts will not grant him a permanent injunction
restraining the other members to deny him joint possession in future.44 But where one member transfers his share,
a coparcener can be granted an injunction restraining the transferee from claiming or dispossessing the coparcener
of a portion of property till they work out the equity of alienee by the formal portion.45
(iv) Right of Survivorship

Coparceners have a right by birth in the coparcenary property and the moment a son is born he acquires an interest
in the property. The quantum of this interest is not fixed as it fluctuates with deaths and births in the family. Where a
coparcener dies as a member of an undivided coparcenary, his interest in the property is immediately taken by
thesurviving coparceners and he leaves nothing behind that can be called his own share in the joint property. This
right of the surviving coparceners to enlarge their shares in the property is due to the application of the doctrine of
survivorship. For example, a coparcenary comprises the father and his two sons. Each of them has a probable
1/3rd share in the property till the undivided status is maintained. On the death of one of the sons, his probable
1/3rd in the property is taken by the surviving coparceners ie father and the surviving brother and the deceased will
die without any share in the coparcenary property. The share of the father and the surviving son will be increased to
a probable half. The right of survivorship is one of the basic rights of a coparcener.
(v) Right to Accounts

In a joint family, Karta has the authority to manage its affairs and also the property in the best interests of the family.
However, even though it is a fiduciary capacity, the Karta is not bound to economise or be very vigilant with the
income of the family. He is not liable be to accountable to the other members except in three situations:

(a) he is conducting the family business and the nature of business is such as necessitates maintenance of
proper accounting; or
(b) there are charges of fraud or misappropriation of income or conversion;
(c) when a coparcener asks for a partition.

In such cases, the coparcener can ask the Karta to render the account, but, the Karta cannot be asked to give the
past accounts and he would be within his rights to render only the then existing accounts.

A suit for mere accounts or mesne profits without the existence of any of the three above-mentioned situations
would not be maintainable. However, there may be an agreement between the Karta and the other members of the
family whereby Karta undertakes to render accounts to the family either periodically or at such intervals as may be
agreed by the members. Such an agreement would be valid. An improper or incorrect accounting by the Karta can
be challenged by the coparceners and the court can order the re-opening of accounts. At the time of partition, the
Karta is under a legal obligation to give proper accounts of the complete income of what all he has spent. A
coparcener is not entitled to any mesne profits except where he was excluded from the enjoyment of the property.
(vi) Right to Make Acquisitions

A coparcener can hold an interest in the coparcenary property and possess separate property of his own at the
same time. Law does not restrict him from acquiring property in his individual capacity and for this the consent of
the other coparceners is not an essential requirement. He can earn a salary if he is engaged in a separate
business, can inherit property from his relations, receive property through gift or Will, win a prize or a lottery, acquire
property or money through his special skills or learning or otherwise.

He is also entitled to maintain a complete segregation of both the kinds of properties i.e., his separate properties
and his share in the coparcenary property. Unless it can be shown that his acquisitions are with the help of the
coparcenary property or are acquired to its detriment, no other coparcener including his own son can claim any
interest whatsoever in these properties. He has full powers of disposal over his separate properties as in law he has
an exclusive title to it. No other coparcener can claim a right of survivorship in it and on the death of the owner, this
property will pass to the legal heirs under the relevant laws of inheritance or testamentary succession if he leaves
behind a valid Will (Testament).
 Page 12 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

Where a coparcener wants to blend his separate property into the joint family property he can do so by expressing
a clear intention to do so. Upon blending or throwing his separate property into the common stock, his separate
property will be converted into the joint family property for the benefit of all the joint family members, including him.
His interest in such property will now be on par with all the other coparceners and he would not be empowered to
claim any better rights over it on the ground that it was once his separate property. His exclusive control over it will
be lost, and on his death his share in it will pass to the other coparceners under the doctrine of survivorship.
Blending is an irrevocable act and once he blends his separate property into the joint family common stock, he
cannot reclaim it.

A coparcener therefore is competent to acquire the separate property in his individual capacity, can blend his
separate property into joint family property but is not empowered to convert any portion of the joint family property
into his separate acquisitions.
(vii) Right to ask for Partition

The interest of a coparcener in the coparcenary property is a fluctuating interest that changes with the deaths and
births of other coparceners in the family. A coparcener is competent to convert this fluctuating and probable share
to a fixed and specific share in the property by demanding a partition. Except in Bombay46 and Punjab,47 where a
son cannot demand a partition from the father if he is joint with his own father without his consent, every coparcener
has a right to demand a partition.48 All that he needs to do is to form and manifest an unequivocal intention to
separate himself from the joint family and communicate it to the other coparceners.49 No coparcener including even
the Karta can refuse the demand of a partition by a coparcener. In fact there is no scope for a refusal, because the
moment an adult coparcener demands partition, a severance of status takes place.50 Since the management of the
joint family property is with the Karta, for actual division of property by metes and bounds, if the Karta refuses, the
coparcener has a right to go to the court and seek its help by filing a suit for partition. The court in such cases is not
competent to go into the reasons, which prompted the coparcener to approach it, nor is it competent to seek
justifications from him to break away from the family. Minority is not a bar to seek partition,51 but a minor cannot
seek partition directly. He can institute a suit for partition through a next friend in a court of law.52 Here the court will
take cognisance of the situation and would enforce partition only when it is satisfied that the partition would be
beneficial to or would promote the interests of the minor.53 But where it comes to the conclusion on the basis of the
facts before it, that the interests of the minor are being adequately taken care of by the other coparceners or the
father, no partition will be effected.

A coparcener can ask for a partition and demarcation of his shares, generally and he is not permitted to seek
partition from only one or some of the coparceners and remain joint with the rest.54 Either he is a joint member with
all, or becomes separate as against all the members. At his instance there cannot be a partial separation. Similarly
depending upon the wishes of the other coparceners, there can be a total fragmentation of the joint family or only
one of them can separate and the rest of the members may remain joint. In law there is no presumption therefore
that if one of the coparceners seeks partition, the rest of the family also separates. There cannot be a partition
between a sole surviving coparcener and the female members if the latter are not coparceners.55 Mere specification
of shares without intention to sever does not result in severance.56

Partition is an irrevocable act, and once it is effected and is complete, it cannot be revoked and the parties can
come back together only through a reunion.57
(viii) Right to Renounce his Interest

Every coparcener has an interest in the joint family property that he can enjoy with all other members and if he so
desires can also demarcate it by effecting a partition. He cannot ordinarily transfer his undivided share except under
some specific situations, but a coparcener is empowered to renounce his undivided share in the joint family
property, in favour of all the remaining coparceners. Two things are important here. Firstly renunciation should be of
the entire undivided interest of the coparcener.58 Either he renounces his total interest or none at all. Secondly,
such renunciation must be in favour of all the remaining coparceners.59 Therefore, renunciation has to be of the
totality of interest and not of partial or part of undivided interest and in favour of the collective body of coparceners
and not some of them. Renunciation of interest does not mean a partition of the family.60 It only reduces the number
of shares of the property. The coparcener who renounces his interest is now no longer entitled to get a share in the
property when a partition takes place. However, a renunciation of interest in favour of the coparceners after
agreeing to receive maintenance is valid.61 Since the coparcener renouncing his interest is no longer entitled to get
a share, a son begotten after such renunciation is also not entitled to claim any share.62But, sons living at the time
of such renunciation are not effected by the act of the father.63 Any coparcener can renounce his own interest in the
coparcenary property, even though it is undivided, but cannot renounce the share of his whole branch. Each
 Page 13 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

coparcener in his own right acquires an interest in the coparcenary property and the same cannot be renounced by
anyone else including his own father in favour of the whole body of coparceners. Since an after born son in majority
of cases becomes a coparcener with the father after a partition takes place, when the father does not have a share
due to his renunciation of the same, a son begotten afterwards cannot claim any share in the original coparcenary
property.

For example, a Hindu joint family consists of the father, his wife and two sons. The father and the two sons
constitute a coparcenary, each having a probable 1/3rd share in the property. The father renounces his probable
undivided 1/3rd share in favour of his sons. Though he would continue to be a member of the joint family,64 his
share in the coparcenary property is extinguished, and the number of sharers in the property is reduced to two from
three. Since renunciation by the father is in presence of sons, the rights of the sons are not affected at all, and each
of them now has a probable half share in the property. Suppose after such renunciation by the father, a third son is
begotten and is born a year later. This son will not acquire any interest in the coparcenary property held by his
brothers. No person has a right by birth in the property of the brothers, but has such a right in the property of the
father, or lineal male ascendants up to three generations only. Here, since the father himself does not have any
interest in the original coparcenary property, the son begotten after the renunciation will also not have any interest
in it. It has been held by the Bombay High Court that renunciation of share by a coparcener who continues to be a
member of joint family after renunciation does not deprive his sons, including the after born sons, of a share in the
joint family property when they continue to be coparceners.65 The judgment does not seem to be correct with
respect to sons begotten after such renunciation as it would virtually mean giving a right by birth to such son in the
property held by the collaterals. For example, in Fig. 3.8, three brothers A, B and C along with A’s two sons
constitute a coparcenary. A renounces his share in favour of the other two brothers.

Fig. 3.8

Since S1 and S2 also have a right by birth, the same will not be affected by such renunciation as it merely reduces
the number of sharers. The individual share of A, that was a probable 1/9th will pass on to the whole body of
coparceners including his own sons. Now S3, who was begotten after such renunciation is born to A, who has
already renounced his interest with respect to the other coparceners in the family. The relation of S3 is that of a
brother (with regard to S1 and S2 ) and of a nephew as regards B and C. A son acquires a right by birth in the
property held by the father (who in this case does not have any property) and not in the property of brothers or
uncles. Therefore, a son begotten after renunciation by the father of his interest in the property, cannot claim any
share in the original coparcenary property.
(ix) Right to Restrain Improper Acts

A coparcener who commits an act that is either improper, illegal or prejudicial to the interest of the joint family
members or the coparcenary property including common enjoyment and possession, can be restrained by an
injunction from doing such an act. One coparcener alone in presence of others cannot maintain such a suit, as a
suit restraining such action must be filed on behalf of all the coparceners. Where all the coparceners are living in
the joint family house and one of them improperly and illegally prevents the others from using a common staircase,
an injunction can be obtained against him. The court’s powers are restricted to the acts of illegitimate use of family
property or acts amounting to ouster, or acts of waste with respect to property only. Where an individual coparcener
commits an improper act and the rest of the family is affected, all the family members have to join in the suit against
him. But where one of the coparceners is ousted from the family property’s enjoyment, he can file a claim
individually against the whole of the family. Similarly, where a decision has been given by the court against the joint
family, one coparcener alone can appeal against it even though the other members including the Karta do not join
him.66
(x) Right of Alienation

As a general rule a Mitakshara coparcener does not have a right to dispose of his undivided share in the
coparcenary property by alienation67 unless all the coparceners give a valid consent to it.68 However in Bombay,
Madras69 and Jammu and Kashmir,70 an undivided coparcener is permitted to either sell or mortgage his share in
the Mitakshara coparcenary without the consent of the other coparceners. Where a mortgage is therefore effected
 Page 14 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

by a coparcener in these regions, it will be valid to the extent of his share and the mortgagee’s rights will be
unaffected with the deaths and births of the other coparceners in the family.71 In other areas governed by
Mitakshara law, a coparcener cannot alienate his undivided share without the consent of other coparceners even
where it is in favour of another coparcener.72 The reason is that the ownership of the property as a whole vests with
all the coparceners. If all of them agree, they can sell the entire property. Similarly, even a sole surviving
coparcener can alienate the property after making a provision for maintenance and other rights of the female
members. An alienation by a sole surviving coparcener cannot be challenged by any person except an after born
son, provided he was in the womb of his mother at the time of such alienation.

An undivided interest of a coparcener can be sold in execution of a money decree obtained by the court. Such an
alienation is called an involuntary alienation. If the undivided share is attached by the court during the life time of
such a coparcener, it will be sold later and can be purchased by anyone. If before such attachment but after the
filing of the suit the coparcener dies, his undivided interest passes to the other coparceners under doctrine of
survivorship and there will be nothing left, that the court can attach.73

A coparcener cannot alienate his undivided share by way of gift,74 except when it is with the consent of all the
coparceners or it is of a small portion of the property in favour of a daughter or a sister.75 With respect to a
disposition by Will, only a sole surviving coparcener can make a Will of the coparcenary property. As it will be valid
only from the date of the death of such coparcener, if another coparcener is born between the date of executing the
Will and the date of its operation, the Will, will become invalid.76 But if the testator after making the Will dies as a
sole surviving coparcener, it will be valid. Post-1956, a coparcener is competent to make a valid Will, with respect to
his undivided share in the coparcenary property.77
(xi) Right to challenge an unauthorised alienation

The power of alienation of joint family property is with the Karta. He can exercise this power only for some permitted
purpose viz., he can sell the property for legal necessity, benefit of estate, or for performance of some
indispensable religious or charitable duties. Where the Karta is the father, he can also sell the property for payment
of his antecedent debts. Where Karta sells the joint family property for an unauthorised purpose, the coparceners
have three remedies in the alternative:

(a) Where the Karta is contemplating an alienation, but it is not actually effected, a coparcener can seek
partition and separate from the family. Once he separates, Karta cannot sell his share.
(b) Where the act of Karta amounts to a waste or an ouster,78 he can be restrained by an injunction obtained
from the court from committing such waste. However no injunction can otherwise be obtained by
coparceners restraining Karta from alienating the joint family property.79
(c) Where an alienation of the property is already effected, it can be challenged by the coparceners as invalid
and not binding on their shares.80 The burden of proof in such cases will be on the alienee to prove that
Karta was authorised to sell the property.81 However, where the property is sold by the father to pay his
antecedent debts and the sons claim that such alienation was not binding on them as the debts were
contracted by the father for an illegal or immoral purpose, not only do they have to prove the immoral or
illegal character of the debt but also that the creditor had notice of it.

1. The sages declared the partition of the heritable property to be co-ordinate with the gifts of funeral cake. Since it was
said that the son can offer a funeral cake to the father and the grandfather, there was a conflict of opinion on whether
the class of coparceners would include only the sons and grandsons or would also include a great-grandson. However,
Vyavahara Mayukha says that the term grandfather refers to a class as including the great-grandfather also and
therefore a man’s sons, sons of sons and sons of sons of sons can offer spiritual salvation to him and would be his
coparceners.
2. Sunder Lal v. Chittar Mal, (1907) ILR 29 All 1; Anandrao v. Vasantrao, (1907) 9 Bom LR 595 [LNIND 1907 BOM 24]
(PC).
3. For the position after 2005, see infra.
4. Sudarsanam v. Narasimhulu, (1902) ILR 25 Mad 149, 154–157.
5. Sudarsanam v. Narasimhulu, (1902) ILR 25 Mad 149 ; see also Bhagwan Das v. Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287 [LNIND
1961 SC 465]; Karsan Das Dharamsey v. Gangabai, (1908) ILR 32 Bom 479; Packiriswamy v. Doriaswamy, (1931) ILR
 Page 15 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

Rang 266; any arrangement amongst members will not have any affect on the devolution of the property, see Sobhag
Singh v. Pirthe Singh, (1950) ILR Nag 160.
6. Comm of Income Tax v. Govinda Ram Sugar Mills, AIR 1966 SC 240 ; Pushpa Devi v. Comm of Income Tax, AIR 1977
SC 2230 [LNIND 1977 SC 258]; see also Desappa Setty v. Vedavathamma, AIR 1972 Mys 283 ; Rajendra Nath v.
Shiv Nath, AIR 1971 All 448 ; CED v. Harish Chandra, (1987) 167 ITR 230 (All); Rameshwar Mistry v. Bebulala Mistry,
AIR 1991 Pat 3 .
7. Sabitri v. FA Savi, AIR 1933 Pat 306 ; Punna Bibi v. Radha Kissen, (1904) ILR 31 Cal 476.
8. Comm of Income Tax v. Govinda Ram Sugar Mills, AIR 1966 SC 240 ; Kanji v. Permanand, AIR 1992 MP 208 [LNIND
1991 MP 172].
9. Seetha Bai v. Narasimha, (1945) ILR Mad 568; Seethamma v. Veerana, (1950) ILR Mad 1076; Maguni Padhano v.
Lakananidhi, AIR 1956 Ori 1, wherein it was held that the mother cannot act as Karta.
10. Sushila Devi v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1959 Cal 697 [LNIND 1959 CAL 117].
11. Hira Singh v. K Mangla, AIR 1928 Lah 122 ; Sitla Prasad v. Sri Ram, (1944) ILR Luck 450.
12. Gangamma v. Kuppammal, 1939 Mad 139 .
13. Com of Income Tax v. Pannbai, AIR 1913 Nag 160 .
14. Gur Narain Das v. Gur Tahal Das, AIR 1952 SC 225 [LNIND 1952 SC 34]; Vellaiyappa Chetty v. Natarajan, AIR 1931
PC 294 .
15. Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Ranganathan, AIR 2010 SC 2685 [LNIND 2010 SC 515].
16. See Amirthammal v. Vallimayil Ammal, 1942 Mad 693 .
17. Ratneshwari Nandan Singh v. Bhagwati Saran Singh, AIR 1950 FC 142, 1950 SCJ 514.
18. See The Special Marriage Act, 1954, s. 21A.
19. See however Rosie Marie v. CWT, 1970 Mad 249 wherein it was held that a Hindu man getting married to a Christian
woman under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 will form a coparcenary with his son.
20. See the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, s. 12.
22. Ibid, para 10.
23. Special Marriage Act, 1954, s. 21A.
24. AIR 2010 Ori 45 [LNIND 2009 ORI 116].
25. For introduction of daughters as coparceners see infra.
26. Katama Natchiar v. The Rajah of Shivagunga, (1863) 9 MIA 539.
27. Appovier v. Rama Subba, (1886) 11 MIA 75, 89.
28. Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 [LNIND 1966 SC 149]; Comm of Gift Tax, Madras
v. NS Chettiar, AIR 1971 SC 2410 [LNIND 1971 SC 469].
29. Appovier alias Seetaramier v. Rama Subba Aiyan, (1866) 11 MIA 75; State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, AIR 1969
SC 1330 [LNIND 1969 SC 67], 1333.
30. Bhaga Pruseth v. Purini Dei, AIR 2003 NOC 171 (Ori).
31. In certain states a coparcener can transfer his undivided interest in the coparcenary property. For details see Chapter
8, infra.
32. For details see Chapter 8, infra.
33. Ram Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1953 All 150 .
34. For details, see Chapter 11.
35. AIR 2010 Ori. 13 [LNIND 2009 ORI 89].
36. Mandly Prasad v. Ramcharan Lal, (1947) ILR Nag 848.
37. Shantabai v. Sheshappa Kallappa Todkar, (2001) 1 HLR 67 (Bom); Janakamma v. Comm of Gift Tax, Andhra Pradesh,
(1968) 1 Andh LT 161.
38. Pratapsing v. Agarsingji, (1919) 46 IA 97.
39. State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, AIR 1969 SC 1330 [LNIND 1969 SC 67]; Appovier v. Rama Subba, (1886) 11
MIA 75; Sudarsan v. Narasimhulu, (1902) ILR 25 Mad 149 .
 Page 16 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

40. Shadi v. Anup Singh, (1890) ILR 12 All 436 (FB); Mohan Chand v. Isakbhai, (1901) ILR 25 Bom 248; Mathu v. Ammalu,
AIR 1993 Ker 272 .
41. Paras Ram v. Sherjit, (1887) ILR 9 All 661.
42. Gopala Krishnan v. Meganathan, (1972) 2 MLJ 481 [LNIND 1972 MAD 91].
43. Naranbhai v. Ranchod, 3 Bom LR 598.
44. Ibid; but see also Radhakanta v. Manmohinee, AIR 1933 Cal 397 .
45. Shankar v. Gulab, (1945) Nag LJ 172.
46. Apaji v. Ramachandra, (1812) 16 Bom 29; Aher Hamiry v. Aher Duda, AIR 1978 Guj 10 [LNIND 1977 GUJ 24]; Bhupal
v. Tavanappa, AIR 1922 Bom 292 .
47. Gahru Ram v. Hardevi, AIR 1926 Lah 85 .
48. Nilkanta Krishnarao Apte v. Ramachandra, AIR 1991 Bom 10 [LNIND 1990 BOM 253]; Digambar v. Dhanraj, (1922) 1
Pat 361; Kaliprasad v. Ramacharan, (1876) 1 All 159 FB.
49. A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 [LNIND 1963 SC 101].
50. Putrangamma v. Rangamma, AIR 1968 SC 1018 [LNIND 1968 SC 36].
51. Dnyaneshwar Vishnu v. Anant Vasudeo, (1936) 60 Bom 736; Pooran Chand v. Radha Raman, AIR 1934 All 197 .
52. Kakamanu Pedasubbayya v. Kakamanu, AIR 1958 SC 1042 [LNIND 1958 SC 98].
53. Nagappa Chettiar v. Subramanian, (1946) ILR Mad 103, China Venkata v. Venkatarama, AIR 1957 AP 93 ;
Chandrashwar Singh v. Ramchandra Singh, AIR 1973 Pat 215 .
54. BT Ravindranath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 179 ITR 243 (Kant).
55. Girijanandini Devi v. Brijendra Narain, AIR 1967 SC 1124 [LNIND 1966 SC 149].
56. Putrangamma v. Rangamma, AIR 1968 SC 1018 [LNIND 1968 SC 36].
57. Thangavelu Pillai v. Purshottam Reddi, (1914) 27 MLJ 272 [LNIND 1914 MAD 256]; Alluri Venkatapathi v. Dantaluri
Venkatanarasimha, (1937) ILR 1 Mad, AIR 1936 PC 264 ; Rattamma v. Subbama, AIR 1973 AP 226 [LNIND 1972 AP
150].
58. Alluri Venkatapathi v. Dantaluri Venkata Narasimha, AIR 1936 PC 264 .
59. Choudhuri Raghubans Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2096 .
60. Guruswamy v. Marappa, 1950 Mad 140 .
61. K. China Anjaneyulu v. K. China Ramaya, AIR 1965 AP 177 [LNIND 1964 AP 149](FB) ; Krishna Namboodri v. Chena
Kesavan, AIR 1959 Ker 336 [LNIND 1959 KER 24].
62. Pathak Hayagriv Vishvanath v. Pathak Thakorlai Manilal, AIR 1967 Guj 192 .
63. Kishen Chunder v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1973 Raj 171 .
64. Pannamma v. Aspinwal, AIR 1988 Kant 99 .
65. Pandurang Narayan v. Bhagwandas, (1920) 44 Bom 341; Gundayya v. Shriniwas, AIR 1937 Bom 51 .
66. Ambi v. Kelen, 1937 Mad 843 .
67. Syed Karam v. Jorawar Singh, AIR 1922 PC 353 ; Bhoj Raj v. Nathuram, AIR 1916 Nag 25 ; Ramkishan v. Damodar,
AIR 1934 Nag 108 ; Ganpatrao v. Kanhayalal, AIR 1934 Nag 132 .
68. Where all the coparceners agree, the complete or part of the joint family property can be sold.
69. Nallappa Gounder v. Lakshmi, 1993 Mad 78 ; Subba v. Venkatrami, (1915) 38 Mad 1187; Aiyyagiri v. Aiyyagiri, (1902)
25 Mad 609; Rajah Vasi Reddy v. Lakshminaran Simhan, (1940) ILR Mad 913.
70. Gian Chand v. Krishna Singh, AIR 1978 J&K 16 .
71. Angraj v. Ram Rup, AIR 1930 Ori 284 ; Puttoo Lal v. Raghubir Prasad, AIR 1933 Ori 535 ; Ralia Ram v. Atma Ram,
AIR 1933 Lah 343 ; Jwala Prasad v. Maharaja Pratap, AIR 1916 Pat 203 ; Amar Dayal v. Har Persaud, AIR 1920 Pat
433 ; Krishna Deb v. Jokhilal, AIR 1956 Pat 290 ; Shamboo v. Ramdeo, AIR 1982 All 508 ; Kali Shanker v. Nawab
Singh, (1909) 31 All 507; Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh, (1891) 18 Cal 157; Mahubeer Persad v. Ramyad, (1878)
12 Beng LR 90; Sadabart Prasad v. Foolbash Koer, (1869) 3 Beng LR 31 (FB).
72. Faiz Ali v. Harkaur, AIR 1932 Nag 334 ; Gundayya v. Shriniwas, AIR 1937 Bom 51 .
 Page 17 of 17
CHAPTER 3 COPARCENARY

73. Gauramma v. Mallappa, AIR 1964 SC 510 [LNIND 1963 SC 195]; Sundaramya v. Seethamma, (1911) 21 MLJ 695
[LNIND 1911 MAD 110].
74. Vallammal Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1967 SC 1153 [LNIND 1967 SC 17]; Lalita Devi v. Ishar Das, AIR 1933 Lah
544 ; Venkatrao v. Venkatesh Rao, AIR 1956 AP 1 .
75. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 30.
76. Sant Singh v. Mata Ram, 1989 (1) HLR 214 (SC).
77. Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash, AIR 1988 SC 576 [LNIND 1988 SC 20].
78. Kailash Chand v. Bajrang Lal, 1997 (1) HLR 342.
79. Pethu Reddiar v. Kanda Swami, 1950 Mad 560 ; Raveneshwar Prasad Singh v. Chandi Prasad Singh, (1911) 38 Cal
721; Hanooman Persaud v. Babbooee, (1856) 6 MIA 393; Muddun Thakoor v. Kantoo Lall, (1874) 14 Beng LR 187;
Bed Nath v. Rani Rajeshwari Devi, AIR 1937 Ori 406 ; Sreeramulu v. Thandana Krishnayya, (1942) 2 MLJ 452;
Muthachi v. Kandaswami, (1945) MLJ 207; Ramdin v. Rampori Chan, AIR 1942 Pat 170 ; Munisam v. Rajgopal, (1947)
1 MLJ 452.
80. Kailash Chand v. Bajrang Lal, (1997) 1 HLR 342.
81. Pethu Red Bair v. Kanda Swami, 1950 Mad 560 .

End of Document