Name:……………… Roll No:………………………………

The National Law Institute University, Bhopal

Mid-Term Examination, February-March 2016
Trimester - VI
Subject: FAMILY LAW-II
MM: 30 Marks Time: 2 hours
Important Instructions;
I. All questions are compulsory.
II. All questions carry equal marks.
III. Credit will be given for brevity and coherency.
IV. The students may seek clarification regarding the questions in the first thirty(30) minutes of
the beginning of the examination and no request in this regard will be entertained thereafter .

Q.1.A: Directions for Q1 to Q6: The following items consists of two propositions
i.e. Proposition I and Proposition II. Examine the two propositions and select
your answer using the codes given below.
a) Only I is correct.
b) Only II is correct.
c) Both I and II are correct.
d) Neither I nor II is correct

1. I - The Hindu Women Right to Property Act,1937 gave right of inheritance to a widow along
with sons under Dayaybhaga System.
II – A widow under the classical Dayabhaga System inherited the interest of her deceased husband
along with her son.

2. I – Property gifted by paternal uncle is Apratibandh Daya.

II – Property inherited from maternal uncle is Sapratibandh Daya.

3. I – There cannot be a joint family without joint family property.

II - There is a presumption that a Hindu joint family holds joint property.

4. I – A Mitakshara coparcener is not permitted to have separate property.

II – A Mitakshara coparcener cannot throw his separate property into the common stock.

5. I - HSA,1956 allows alienation of undivided interest in the Mitakshara Coparecenary by way of

Will and Gift both.
II - HSA, 1956 allows alienation of undivided interest in the Mitakshara Coparcenary by way of
Gift only.

1
 6. I- An alienee of the joint family property ought to make proper inquiry into the existence
of legal necessity before purchasing the joint family property.
II-A prior inquiry into existence of legal necessity protects the rights of an alienee on equitable
grounds.

Q1.B: Directions for Q7 to Q10: Choose the most appropriate alternative.

7. Under Hindu Women Right to Property Act,1937, presence of a Widow of the deceased
Mitakchara Coparcener obliterates –
a) Survivorship.
b) Inheritance.
c) Survivorship and Inheritance both.
d) None of the above.

8. Under the Classical Dayabhaga school of law –

a) Son has no right in the joint property while father is alive.
b) The essence of coparcenary property is in community of ownership.
c) Sons can demand partition against their father.
d) All of the above.

9. In a Tarwad system –
a) Descent is traced through female ancestor.
b) Undivided interest of the deceased member devolves upon surviving members by way of
inheritance.
c) A son along with his children is a member of his mother’s Tarwad.
d) All of the above

10. Which one of the following is an example of Joint Family Property?-

a) Property acquired by Karta out of his own income in the name of his son.
b) Property inherited by a Hindu from his Maternal Grand Father.
c) Property received by a Hindu by way of Gift from his brother,
d) None of the above.

Q1.C: Directions for Q11 to Q15: State True or False

11. Coparcenary Property is encumbered with an obligation to maintain female members of the
Joint Hindu Family.

12. A Mitakshara Coparcener can not renounce his undivided interest selectively.
2
13. Accrual of interest in Sapratibandh Daya is unobstructed by the existence of the holder of
the property.

14. The alienee/purchaser of undivided interest in a Mitakshara Coparcenary has a right to

inherit separate properties of his vendor.

15. A son in mother’s womb is not a member of Hindu Joint Family but his rights in the Joint
Family Property are recognized.

Q.1D: Directions for Q16 to Q.20: Match the Entries in Column ‘A’ with Entries in Column
‘B’.

Column ‘A’ Column ‘B’

16. Child given in valid Adoption. a. Tarwad System

17. Karnavan b. Legal Necessity

18. Blending c. Disposal of undivided interest in the

Mitakshara Coparcenary by Will

19. S.30 HSA, 1956 d. Separate property of Mitakshara

coparcener thrown into the common stock

20. Defending a suit. e.Ouster from Hindu Joint Family

(10)
Q2. A) Son (S) inherited his Father’s (F) certain self acquired property in 1950, who died intestate.
Later S wished to alienate that property in 1952. His son X objected to it and argued that since
the property was ancestral vis a vis X, therefore X had an interest in that property. Decide the
matter on the basis of relevant principles and case laws.

B) Discuss in detail the concepts of ‘Ancestral Property’ and ‘Separate Property’. What effect
does HSA,1956 has on both kinds of properties? (10)

Q3. Write a detailed note on the development of Hindu Women’s rights in the Mitakshara
Coparcenary.

OR

3
A) X, a Mitakshara Coparcener sold joint family property to P for a sum of Rupees 10 Lakhs.
Before P could finalize the deal with X, he made an enquiry as to why money was needed by X
and found that X needed money for his daughter’s marriage. X spent Rupees 8 Lakhs upon the
marriage of his daughter and Rupees 1.5 Lakhs upon the renovation of his house. But, he could
not account for Rupees 50,000.00. X’s son S challenged the validity of the alienation on the
ground that alienation was not binding on him as X could not account for Rupees 50,000.00 and
hence requested the court to declare such an alienation as invalid. Decide, whether S’s claim
would succeed or not. Support your answer with reasons.

B) Discuss the rights of the purchaser of the undivided interest of a Mitakshara coparcener , when
alienation is valid.
(10)