Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coparcenary Under Hindu Law Boundaries R
Coparcenary Under Hindu Law Boundaries R
Law Review
Volume 4 Number 1 2008 - 2009
Articles
Cyber Crimes and Information Technology R.M.Kamble & C.Vishwapriya
Book Review
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the contributors are personal and do not in any way
represent opinions of the institution.
2008-2009] 1
NALSAR Law Review
Volume 4 2008 - 2009 Number 1
Contents
Message from the Patron 3
Editorial 5
Articles
Cyber Crimes and Information Technology R.M.Kamble
& C.Vishwapriya 7
Tackling Electronic Waste :
Need of the Hour! P. Sree Sudha 17
Coparcenary Under Hindu Law:
Boundaries Redefined Vijender Kumar 27
Environmental Protection: International
Legislative and Administrative Efforts Aruna B. Venkat 41
Is Dispute Settlement System of
the World Trade Organisation an
Adjudicative or Adjustive System? Biranchi N.P. Panda 79
The Role of New Technology in Improving
Engagement Among Law Students Suraj Tamaria 91
Glimpses of Science of Regional Planning
Techniques Adopted in Medieval Nanded
District of Maharashtra Brototi Biswas 102
Disqualification on the Basis of Defection-
A Need for Strengthening
Anti Defection Law K.P.S. Mahalwar 116
Investigation into Crimes - Supervision
by Prosecutor Jayasankar.K.I. 121
Green Consumerism and Packaging Waste
Management: Indian Legal Scenario K. Vidyullatha Reddy 160
Comments on Proposed Amendments to Right
to Information Act, 2005: No Iron Curtains
between People and Public Information Madabhushi Sridhar 169
Book Review
Landmarks in Indian Legal and
Constitutional History K.V.S.Sarma 175
Law & Social Transformation K.V.S.Sarma 176
2008-2009] 27
coparcenary property may follow either the pattern followed in Hindu law or
statutory provisions may be made in this behalf. But, in any case inclusion of a
female child in coparcenary is not against the letter and spirit of Hindu law.
Concept of Coparcenary: Historical Perspective
Coparcenary is “unity of title, possession and interest”. To clarify the
term further, a Hindu Coparcenary is a much narrower body than a Hindu joint
family, it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the
coparcenary property, they being the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of
the holders of the property for the time being.
The Black’s law dictionary gives a more comprehensive explanation of
the term coparcenary. It says, “such estate arises where several take by descent
from same ancestor as one heir, all coparceners constituting but one heir and
having but one estate and being connected by unity of interest and of title. A
species of estate, or tenancy, which exists where lands of inheritance descend
from the ancestor to two or more persons. It arose in England either by common
law or particular custom. By common law, as where a person, seised in fee-
simple or fee-tail, dies, and his next heirs are two or more females, his daughters,
sisters, aunts, cousins, or their representatives; in this case they all inherit, and
these coheirs, are then called “coparceners”, or, for brevity “parceners” only.
By particular custom, as where lands descend, as in gavelkind, to all the mates
in equal degree, as sons, brothers, uncles etc…An estate which several persons
hold as one heir, whether male or female. This estate has the three unities of
time, title and possession; but the interests of the coparceners may be unequal.”2
In Dharmasastra coparceners are referred to as Sahadaee. The term
coparceners came to be used as a result of influence of Western Jurisprudence.
Therefore, the present concept is not very difficult from the earlier one. The
justification of coparcenary according to the Mitakshara School is that those
who can offer funeral oblations (Pindh-daan) are entitled to the property. The
concept of Pindh-daan is that the person who offers funeral oblations share
the same blood with the person to whom he is offering a Pindh.
A coparcenary is purely a creation of law; it cannot be created by act of
parties, except by adoption. In order to be able to claim a partition, it does not
matter how remote from the common ancestor a person may be, provided he is
not more than four degrees removed from the last male owner who has himself
taken an interest by birth.3
2 Joseph R. Nolan et al., Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. 1990, p. 335.
3 P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. III, 3rd ed. 1993, p. 591. Vide Moro v. Ganesh, 10 Bm.
HCR, p. 444, pp. 461-468 where Mr. Justice Nanbhai Haridas very lucidly explains by several
diagrams the limits of a coparcenary and what persons are entitled to demand a partition and
from whom.
30 NALSAR Law Review [Vol.4 : No.1
partition but until then the heirs hold the property as coparceners. These
observations must obviously be read in the context of a father dying leaving two
or more male issues who would constitute a coparcenary, though of course, in
their case, there would be only unity of possession and not unity of ownership.
Thus, till a partition by metes and bounds, that is, actual and final distribution of
properties takes place, each coparcener can say what his share will be. In
other words, none of them can say such and such property will fall to his share.
Each coparcener is in possession of the entire property, even if he has no actual
possession, as possession of one is possession of all. No one can claim any
exclusive possession of property unless agreed upon by coparceners.
In Sudarsana Maistri v. Narasimhulu,7 it was held that a joint family
and its coparcenary with all its incidents are purely a creature of Hindu law and
cannot be created by act of parties, as the fundamental principle of the joint
family is the tie of sapindaship arising by birth, marriage and adoption.
Andhra Pradesh Module: Step towards Proprietary Equality
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has conferred rights of succession on
Hindu females as provided in Section 6 of the Act, relating to succession to an
undivided interest in a joint family property when a coparcener dies intestate.
But a male was free to dispose of inter vivos or by will, his interest in the joint
family property which meant the female could still be deprived of proprietary
right. Considering it unfair to exclude a daughter from participation in the
ownership of coparcenary property, and in order to confer the right to property
by birth on a Hindu female and assimilate her to the position of a male member
of a coparcenary, a Bill, L.A. Bill 12 of 1983 was introduced in the Andhra
Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The Bill was enacted by the Andhra Pradesh
State Assembly on September 25, 1985 and received the assent of the President
and came into force on September 5, 1985.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended by introducing a new
Chapter, Chapter II-A consisting of Sections 29-A, 29-B and 29-C. Section 29-
A provides that the daughter becomes a coparcener by birth along with other
male members and has a right to obtain partition having the equal share with
son. Section 29-B provides that a daughter’s interest in the joint family property
would devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary
and not in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act. The Hindu Succession
(Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 was extended to the whole of the
State of Andhra Pradesh.
This was a very progressive measure and removed to a large extent the
inequality between males and females among Hindus with regard to property
under Hindu law. The example set by Andhra Pradesh has been followed by
other States, viz., the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, the
Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994, and the Hindu Succession
(Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1994. In order to have a uniform law for the whole
of India it was hoped that all other States would follow this example or the Union
Legislature would amend the Principle Act of 1956 on the above lines.
In Narayan Reddy v. Sai Reddi,8 where in a suit for partition of joint
family properties, a preliminary decree was passed ascertaining the share of
the parties, it was held that it was open to the unmarried daughter to claim
share in those properties under Section 29A as amended by A.P. Amendment
Act, 1986 before the passing of the final decree.
In Ashok Kumar Ratanchand v. CIT,9 the A.P. High Court held that
where a coparcener who obtains property on partition and marries subsequently,
the status of unit of assessment after marriage is necessarily that of a Hindu
undivided family and the income from such property is assessable in that status
and not in the status of the individual. After discussing the entire case law on
the subject, the Court observed that the property which a coparcener obtains
on partition does not become for all times his individual and separate property.
If he has a wife or a daughter, depending on him the property will be charged by
the obligation to maintain them. If he marries later, his property, ancestral or
self-acquired, will be burdened by an obligation to maintain his wife. If he begets
a son, that son becomes entitled to a share in the property which thereby revives
the character of joint family property. If he begets only daughters, the obligation
to maintain them will be fastened on the property. An unmarried Hindu male,
obtaining a share of ancestral property on partition retains the property as his
absolute property. But after marriage the property becomes encumbered by an
obligation to maintain his wife or other dependents. It sheds the character of
separate property and revives its character as joint property of the smaller unit
consisting of himself and his wife. In that limited sense, the income therefrom
may be the income of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his
wife.10
The main points for consideration and elucidation of the consequences
of the result of statutory inclusion of a daughter in the category of Mitakshara
Coparcenary were that the anomalies and inconsistencies must be eliminated.
As for the anomaly, it is to be made clear that at the time of marriage, the
daughter must for all purposes cease to be a member of the coparcenary in the
family of her birth. The anomaly is that by virtue of marriage she has become
the member of the family of her husband and the member of her husband’s
family cannot be the member of coparcenary of her family of birth. However,
for the purpose of succession under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, she will remain an heir in the Class I of the Schedule and as for the
inconsistency, it would be inconsistent to regard her children to be the members
of the coparcenary of their mother’s family, because in the case of male
coparceners, the children of the coparceners become the member by virtue of
their birth in the family. But the daughter’s children, in lieu of the coparcenary
membership of their mother’s family, get the membership of coparcenary of
the family in which their mother is married, so there is no denial of any equality
to the daughter of a daughter by denying her the coparcenary membership in
the family of her mother’s birth.
It was felt that not many cases on the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh
Amendment) Act, 1986 for claiming coparcenary interest were coming up in
Courts. There might be two reasons for this. First, it might be that they were
satisfied with the newly created statutory right in their favour. The second
reason might be that the females did not want to disturb the existing usages,
customs and practices of their family of birth. This reason seems to be the most
plausible reason. Granting of coparcenary interest to females not only brings
them proprietary interest but at the same time the females are also liable to the
same duties to pay the debt of their father as the males are and after satisfying
the debt their interest can be taken. Therefore, whether they do not claim the
interest they would still be liable to pay the debt of their father. Further, the
coparcenary interest will also be affected when a Karta alienates the joint
property of the coparcenary. If the alienation is for legal necessity or for the
benefit of the estate or for the welfare of the family, the female coparcener will
be bound by the alienation unless she proves that the alienation was not for
legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate or for the welfare of the family or
that it was immoral or illegal. The aforesaid implications are not imaginary but
they are natural and practical problems which the law must take into account.
Evaluation
The ownership and transfer of ownership is crucial to an understanding
of the economic and social functioning of the institution of the family. It is
impossible to study the relevance of the Hindu joint family, without examining
the provisions of law relating to property. In other words, it is imperative that
there exists an identification of the members of a family, who are entitled to
inherit and pass on the property. It is the members of the family who hold and
manage the joint family property.
2008-2009] Coparcenary under Hindu Law : Boundaries redefined 37
11 P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. III, 3rd ed. 1993, p. 591.
38 NALSAR Law Review [Vol.4 : No.1
1 2 Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2006 SC 1158: the Supreme Court held that marriages of all
persons, citizens of India, belonging to various religions should be made compulsorily registrable
in their respective States, where marriage is solemnized.
FORM IV
Statement of ownership and other particulars about the NALSAR Law Review
Language English
I, Prof. (Dr.) Veer Singh hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Sd/-
Prof. (Dr.) Veer Singh
Vice-Chancellor
Vol. 4, No. 1 NALSAR Law Review 2008-2009