Tip: Use graphics to set the

tone of the speech.

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,

1956

FAMILY LAW II
 COGNATES

 Section
3(1)(c) “cognate”―one person is said to
be a “cognate” of another if the two are related
by blood or adoption but not wholly through
males
 Therelation in which, when a person is related with
the deceased through one or more female link,
the relation is said to be as COGNATES.
 Example

GREAT GRANDFATHER GREAT GRANDFATHER

GRANDFATHER GRANDMOTHER

MOTHER FATHER

DAUGHTER/SON DAUGHTER/SON
 Section 3(1)(d)
 the expressions “custom” and “usage” signify any rule which,
having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long
time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local
area, tribe, community, group or family:
 Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or
opposed to public policy: and
 Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a
family it has not been discontinued by the family;
 Section 3(1)
 (e) full blood “half blood” and “uterine blood”―
 (i) two persons are said to be related to each other by full
blood when they are descended from a common
ancestor by the same wife, and by half blood when they
are descended from a common ancestor but by different
wives;
 (ii) two persons are said to be related to each other by
uterine blood when they are descended from a common
ancestress but by different husbands;
 PUTTRANGAMMA V. M.S. RANGANNA
(1968) 3 SCR 119 : AIR 1968 SC 1018

 The Petitioners and defendants were living in a joint family. Petitioner, Savoy Ranganna
was the Karta and managed all the affairs.
 He was admitted to Sharda nursing home on 4th January, 1951. On 8th January, 1951 he
issued a notice for the partition of joint family property. He had four daughters only.
 After the notices were registered at the post office, certain well-wishers of the family
intervened and wanted to bring about a settlement.
 On their advice and request, the plaintiff notified the post office that he intended to
withdraw the registered notices.
 But as no agreement could be subsequently reached between the parties, the plaintiff
instituted the present suit on 13th January, 1951 for partition of his share of the joint family
properties.
 PUTTRANGAMMA V. M.S. RANGANNA
(1968) 3 SCR 119 : AIR 1968 SC 1018
 Issue: Whether Savoy Ranganna died as a divided member of the joint family as
alleged in the plaint.
 It is now a settled doctrine of Hindu Law that a member of a joint Hindu family can
bring about his separation in status by a definite, unequivocal and unilateral
declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in
severalty.
 It is not necessary that there should be an agreement between all the coparceners for
the disruption of the joint status. It is immaterial in such a case whether the other
coparceners give their assent to the separation or not.
 The relevant portion of the commentary of Vijnaneswara states as follows:
 the father has attachment and does not desire a partition, yet by the will (or desire) of
the son a partition of the grandfather‘s wealth does take place
 SURAJ NARAIN v. IQBAL NARIAN

 A definite and unambiguous indication by one member

of intention to separate himself and to enjoy his share in
severalty may amount to separation. But to have that
effect the intention must be unequivocal and clearly
expressed … Suraj Narain alleged that he separated a
few months later; there is, however, no writing in support
of his allegation, nothing to show that at that time he
gave expression to an unambiguous intention on his part
to cut himself off from the joint undivided family.
Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj
[ILR 43 Cal 1031]
 Once the decision has been unequivocally expressed
and clearly intimated to his co-sharers, his right to obtain
and possess the share to which he admittedly has a title is
unimpeachable; neither the co-sharers can question it nor
can the Court examine his conscience to find out
whether his reasons for separation were well-founded or
sufficient; the Court has simply to give effect to his right to
have his share allocated separately from the others
PUTTRANGAMMA V. M.S. RANGANNA
(1968) 3 SCR 119 : AIR 1968 SC 1018

 Court held that Ranganna died as a divided member of the joint

family. The notice of 8th January was sufficient to change the status
of the joint family. The notice was well communicated as the
respondent tries to snatch the notice from the doctor and also tries
to convince the plaintiff to revoke the notice.
 Moreover, the plaint on 13th January was filed by the plaintiff only
as he was in a sound state and able to understand the contents of
the plaint.