CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

By
Kavita Singh
Associate Professor
NLIU, Bhopal
 Classification of Property
|
__________________________________
| |

1. JFP 2. Separate Property

Unobstructed Property Obstructed Property
1. Joint Family Property (Unobstructed Property)
• Doctrine of Ancestral Property
• Doctrine of Accretion & Doctrine of Detriment (with the aid of
JFP)
• Doctrine of Blending
• Any Other Source (eg. Lost Joint Family Property Found)
Doctrine of Ancestral Property – the property that has come to the
joint family from ancestors i.e. pre existence of the property with in
the family.
• Ancestral property has two characteristics –
i) It is joint family property and
ii) It is ancestral.
 Classical Law – Property inherited from father or Grand Father
or Great Grand Father – would be an ancestral property in a man’s
hands wrt his Son, Grand Son or Great Grand Son.
 Property inherited from Maternal Grandfather is not an ‘Ancestral
Property’.
 Chelikani Venkayamma Guru v. Chelikani Venkataramayamma
(1902) 29 IA 156 - Two brothers inherited certain properties from
their maternal grand father. They were joint. Upon death of one of
the brothers , his widow claimed a portion of the property
belonging to her deceased husband.
• Court Held – Upon death of one brother, his share in the
properties passed to other brother by survivorship.
 Mohd. Hussain Kiswa v. Babu Khan AIR 1937 PC 233 - Privy
Council held – “Property inherited from maternal grand father would
constitute grand son’s separate property. The word ‘Ancestor’ means
an ascendant in the maternal or paternal line. But the ‘Ancestral
Estate’ – in which under the Hindu Law , a son acquires jointly with
his father an interest by birth must be confined to the property
descended upon the father from his male ancestor in the male line”.
 F
|
(X) X inherit property from his Father or Grand Father or
| Great Grand Father – it is an ancestral property as regards
S his male issues.
|
SS
• If X (at the time X inherits property) has -
i) No son or son;s son or son’s son’s son, - then X holds this
property as an absolute owner and can deal with it as he pleases.
ii) Son, son’s son or son’s son’s son born subsequently – they
become entitled to it by the mere fact of their birth in the family.
 Doctrine of Ancestral Property Applies in the following two cases–
 Before HSA, 1956 –

i) Ancestral Property Inherited - (X)

A inherits property from his father X - |
It is an ‘Ancestral Property’. A
|
B
ii) Separate Property Inherited –
• Property inherited by A from his brother X- A____ (X)
is A’s separate property. |
• Therefore, B did not acquire any interest in that B
property by birth. |
• Upon A’s death- property passed to B not by C
survivorship, but by succession.
• Such property was absolute at disposal of A and B could not
restrain A from alienating it.
• However, once upon A’s death, when this property descends
upon B – it becomes ancestral in the hands of B qua his male
issues.
i.e. C takes an interest in it by birth and C could restrain B from
alienating it and enforce partition against it.
 Doctrine of Ancestral Property is materially affected by S.8 HSA,1956 –
• X dies after 1956 – so – the property A_____(X)
devolves upon A u/s. 8 HSA,1956. |
• Upon A’s death, such property of A B
will devolve upon B under HAS. |
• In B’s hands, it remains his separate C
property and C does not have an
interest in that property by birth.
 CWT v. Chander Sen 1986 SCR (3) 254
Facts - R and his son C constituted a HUF with some immovable property and the
family business. By a partial partition the HUF business was divided between the two
and thereafter it was carried on by a partnership consisting of R and C. The firm was
assessed to income-tax as a registered firm and the two partners were separately assessed
in respect of their share of income. The mother and wife of R had pre-deceased him.
When R died he was survived by his only son C and his grandsons. On his death there
was a credit balance of Rs.1,85,043 in his account in the books of the firm.
In the assessment year 1966-67, C filed a return of his net-wealth by including the property
which on the death of R passed on to him by survivorship.
The sum of R.S.. l ,85,0 13 standing to the credit of R was, however, not included in the
net-wealth of the assessee-family.
In the assessment year 1967-68 also the said a sum was not included, in the net wealth of
the assessee family.
C contended that this amount devolved on C in his individual capacity and not the property of
the assessee family.
The WTO did not accept this contention and held that these sums also belonged to the
assessee-family.
 Issue - Whether the income or asset which a son inherits from his father when
separated by partition should be assessed as income of the Hindu Undivided Family
consisting of his own branch including his sons or his individual income .

The Court Held - The sums standing to the credit of R belonged to C in his individual
capacity and not the Joint Hindu Family.
Under S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of the father who dies
intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family.
 Section 8 lays down the scheme of succession to the property of a Hindu dying
intestate. The Schedule classified the heirs on whom such property should devolve.
Those specified in class I took simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs. A
son's son was not mentioned as an heir under class I of the Schedule, and, therefore, he
could not get any right in the property of his grandfather under the
provision.
Under s. 8 of the HSA ,1956, the property of the father who dies intestate devolves
on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family.
S. 8 of the Act lays down the scheme of devolution of the property of a Hindu dying
intestate. Therefore, the property which devolved on a Hindu on the death of his father
intestate after the coming into force of the HSA, 1956, did not constitute HUF
property consisting of his own branch including his sons.

The right of a son’s son in his grandfather’s property during the lifetime of his father
which existed under the Hindu law , was not saved expressly by the Act, and therefore,
the earlier interpretation of Hindu law giving a right by birth in such property "ceased to
have effect.
Under the Hindu law, the property of a male Hindu devolved on his death on his
sons and the grandsons also had an interest in the property. Now by reason of S.8 of the
Act, the son's son gets excluded and the son alone inherits the properly to the exclusion
of his son. As the effect of s. 8 was directly derogatory of the
law established according to Hindu law, the statutory provisions must prevail in view
of the unequivocal intention in the statute itself, expressed in s. 4(1) which says that to
the extent to which provisions have been made in the Act, those provisions shall
override the established provisions in the texts of Hindu Law.
THANK - YOU