Testamentary disposition of coparceners
By GAUTAM JAYASURYA 2ND YEAR LAW B.A(Hons) LLB RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERISTY OF LAW PUNJAB PATIALA INDIA EMAIL:
[email protected] Twitter: twitter.com/goutamjayb twitter.com/goutamjaybe e
2|Page
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTI INTRODUCTION ON TO JOINT HINDU HINDU FAMILY FAMILY AND AND THE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE OF OF COPARCENARY………………………………………… COPARCENARY……………… ……………………………………………….(5) …………………….(5) 1.1 Joint Hindu Famil Family y 1.2 Coparce Coparcenar nary y 1.3 Genesis Genesis of Coparcenary Coparcenary 2. COPARCENAR COPARCENARY Y PROPERTY PROPERTY AND AND SEPARATE SEPARATE PROPER PROPERTY: TY: A MULTIF MULTIFARIOUS ARIOUS APPROACH………………………………………… APPROACH…………… ……………………………………………………… …………………………..(6) ..(6) 3. MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ENJOYM ENJOYMENT ENT OF COPARCENAR COPARCENARY Y PROPERTY PROPERTY…..(9 …..(9)) 4. COPARCENAR COPARCENAR’S ’S POWER POWER OF ALIENAT ALIENATION…… ION……………… …………………… ……………..…. …..….(11) (11) 4.1 Types of Testamentary Disposition 4.2 Deed of of Will Will 4.3 Deed of Gift: Gift: Not valid valid -1884 -1884 4.4 Deed of Gift: Valid, Valid, if Consented Consented -1957 4.5 Deed of Gift: Gift: Valid Valid -1987 4.6 Sale and Mortgag Mortgagee 4.7 Dayabaga Dayabaga School 4.8 Sole Survivin Surviving g Coparcener Coparcener
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
3|Page
4.9 Right to to Challenge Challenge an Alienation Alienation
5. JUDICIAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM PRONOUNCEMENTS… ENTS…………… …………………. ……….………… …………………. ………..(20) .(20) 6. CRITICAL CRITICAL ANALYSI ANALYSIS S OF TESTAMENTA TESTAMENTARY RY PROVISI PROVISIONS ONS IN IN HINDU HINDU SUCESSION ACT, 1956…………………………… 1956………………………………….…………………(23) …….…………………(23) 7. CONCLUSIO CONCLUSION……… N………………… …………………… …………………… …………………… …………………… ……………(25) …(25) 8. REFERENCE… REFERENCE…………… …………………… …………………… …………………… …………………… …………………… …………(26) (26)
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
4|Page
CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Joint Hindu Family and the influence of coparcenary
JOINT HINDU FAMILY A join join Hindu Hindu famil family y consis consists ts of all person personss lineal lineally ly descen descended ded from from a common common ancest ancestor, or, including their wives and unmarried daughters1. An undivided family is ordinarily a joint one no t only in estate, but also in food and worship2. After the separation of estate to the members of the joint family, the family ceases to be a joint one. The Hindu family should at least constitute two members3. Even if the total number of the male coparceners is temporarily reduced into a single individual, the character of the property remains the same. COPARCENARY A Hindu Coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family, which is purely a creation of law. The conception of a joint Hindu family constituting a coparcenary is that of a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees counting from, and inclusive of, such ancestor. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or Coparcenary property4. These are sons, grandsons and great grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. After the amendment of the 2005, a daughter has been included as a coparcener along with the sons of the coparcener. Difference between ancestral property and separate property is the interlinked with the concept of Coparcenary. The property jointly inherited by a Hindu by birth along with his sons, grandsons and great grandsons from his
1
Commissioner of Income-tax v Luxminarayan Luxminarayan (1935) 59 Bom 618 Sri Ragunada v Brozoa Kishor (1876) 49 Mad 98 3 Krishna Prasad v CIT Banglore AIR 1975 SC 498 4 Surjith Lal Chhaabda v. CIT Bombay AIR 1976 SC 109 2
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
5|Page
male lineage of ancestors is ancestral property5. All other property is included under separate property.
GENISIS OF COPARCENARY (Consult the illustration given below) A Hindu male A, with self acquired property without the help or financial support of his ancestors has a son B. B with his three sons or daughters C, D and E and with their children F, G and K. The main family will constitute the above mentioned members i.e. up to four generations. I, J and K constitute branch families. All these families have one common ancestor A. On the death of A, I and J will be added to the coparcenary. On A’s death the self acquired property of A during A’s lifetime is inherited by B. B’s three children C, D and E takes a vested interest in the property by reason of birth. This property inherited by B will become ancestral property in B’s hands. After the death of A, his children C, D and E and their children F, G and H are coparceners as regards the property.
6
5
Sundar Lal v. Chhittar Mal (1907) 29 All 1 Table showing the illustration of a coparcenary in the Hindu family, available at (last >(last viewed April 27, 2010).
6
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
6|Page
It is to be noted that coparcenary is not always limited to four degrees from common ancestor. A member of a joint family may be removed more than four degrees from common ancestor, and yet he may be a coparcener. But the rule states that partition can only be demanded by any member of a joint family, who is not removed more than four degrees from the last holder. On the death, however of the last holder, he would become a member of the coparcenary, if he was fifth in descent and would be entitled to a share in the partition. Whenever a break of more than three degrees occurs between any holder of the property and the person p erson who claims to enter the coparcenary after his death, the line ceases in that direction.
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
7|Page
CHAPTER 2 Coparccenary and separate property Section 30, Hindu Succession Act entitles a Hindu to make a testamentary disposition of his interest in the joint family property. It doesn’t enable him to alienate his interest by way of gift ir by any other mode, say sale mortgage, lease, exchange etc. These are the inter vivo vivo transactions. They differ from a will. Therefore where Hindu law refuses any Hindu the permission to alienate his interest in the joint family in any of these modes, the restriction cannot be taken as removed by implication from section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. A male member of the Mitakshara coparcenary was not authorised to make a will of this interest in the joint family property before the commencement of HSA. The reason for the disability was that on the death of a coparcener his interest in the coparcenary co parcenary property devolved by survivor ship on the surviving coparceners. There was nothing on which the will could operate7. Any provision of this Act or any other law which renders such property incapable of being disposed by will, stands overruled by this section. All those properties of the deceased intestate that is heritable come under the term ‘property’ includes under the Act. It includes his selfearned property as also his share in the Mitakshara coparcenary if he is survived by any of the female heirs or daughter’s son as mentioned in Class I of the Schedule. It also includes the property that he might have inherited from his grandfather or father after the Act came into force8.
7
Lakshman Dada Naik v. Ramchandra Dada Naik (1881) 7 IA 181 Extract from, Intestate Succession: Devolution Of Property After The Death Of A Hindu Without A Will, Visited on May 5th at 8
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
8|Page
CHAPTER 3 Management and Enjoyment of Coparcenary Property Although the preamble to the Hindu Succession declares that the act amends and codifies Hindu law of intestate succession, yet third chapter deals with the testamentary succession not implidly but boldly and to some extends radically. The effect of this provision is that when a person bequeaths his or her property by will, the succession under the act is excluded and an d the property passes to the testamentary heirs9. Where a Hindu dies after the commencement commence ment of the Amendment Act 2005, 20 05, his interest in the property of the joint Hindu family governed by the Mithakshara Law shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place. Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled to under this Amendment Act 2005, shall be a property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition i.e. by way of Will.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COPARCENARY PROPERTY
•
Unity of ownership: The ownership of property is vested in the whole body of the coparceners.
•
In determinability of shares: The interest of a coparcener in the property is fluctuating and is capable of being enlarged by deaths in the family and liable to be decreased by births in the family.
•
Community of interest: No coparcener is entitled to any independent and exclusive interest in the coparcenary property nor is he entitled to the exclusive possession of any part of the coparcenary property. His right is that of an undivided interest.
•
Rights by birth: Coparcenary members acquire interest in the property by birth under Mithakshara law while under Dayabhaga, nobody inherits any interest by birth.
•
Devolution of survivorship: One of the interesting features of Mithakshara coparcenary is that on the death of a coparcener, his interest in the property passes on to other
9
Sadhu Singh v. Gudwara Sahib Narike (2006) 8 SCC 75
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
9|Page
coparceners by survivorship (i.e. to the members who are alive). In Dayabhaga, the property devolves on the coparceners on the death of the holder.
ELEMENTS OF A COPARCENARY PROPERTY •
Ancestral property: The property which descends from father, grandfather or father’s father’s father.
•
Property jointly acquired by the members of the joint family of HUF nucleus
•
Separate property of a member donated to the joint cause with the intention of abandoning all his separate claims on it, which becomes the property of joint family
•
Property acquired by all or any of the coparceners with the aid of joint family funds
THE RIGHTS OF THE COPARCENER ENJOYS IN RESPECT OF COPARCENARY PROPERTY. The rights are: 1. Community Community of intere interest st and unity unity of possessi possession on of coparcenar coparcenary y property, property, 2. Shar Sharee of inco income me,, 3. Joint Joint possession possession and and joint right right of maintena maintenance nce out of the the family family estate, estate, 4. right right to enforc enforcee part partiti ition, on, 5. Righ Rightt of of sur survi vivor vorsh ship ip..
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
10 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4
Coparcener’s power of alienation Alienation is the capacity of a legal person to transfer a property or a property right to be sold from to another. Restraints to alienation can be seen laws across the globe. In India, these restraints are mostly seen in personal law concerning the testamentary succession of property. Hindu Coparceners are a specific group of people, who according to Mitakshara law are not allowed to alienate their joint family property. To unearth the logic behind this legal fiction, it is necessary to trace back the history of Smritikars of Smritikars in Hindu law. Smritikars were those people who documented the customs of different communities and emphasised that codes of morality are not fixed by some divine authority, but must evolve with respect to the changing requirements of gener generat atio ions ns and comm commun unit itie ies. s. They They prov provid idee the the comm common oner erss a code code of cond conduct uct which which is considered to be the most authoritative of all. Even though they didn’t hold any punitive powers, their influence depended solely on the voluntary internalisation of such value systems by the groups groups to which which they they addres addressed sed themse themselve lvess to, and people people's 's respect respect for their their judgme judgment nt10. Smritikars went on to state that the essence of a coparcenary under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law is community of interest and unity of p ossession. TYPES OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION Transfer or gifting of any property under the terms of a will by a testator is called a testamentary disposition. The term ‘testament’ is derived from testatio mentis, mentis, it testifies the determination of the mind. It is the legal declarations of a man’s intentions which will be performed after his death. Five types of testamentary disposition are widely recognized, which include, i.
Gift: Gift: Gift Gifting ing in simp simple le terms terms is defin defined ed as the the legal legal transf transferr erring ing of asset assetss to one perso person n to another.
ii.
Legacy Legacy:: Testame Testamenta ntary ry gift gift of perso personal nal proper property, ty, trad traditi itional onally ly of money money but but may be real real or personal property11.
10
Madhu Kishwar, From Manusmriti Manusmriti to Madhusmriti Flagellating Flagellating a Mythical Enemy, The education education council on Indian traditions., visited on April 27, 2010 < http://www.infinityfoundation.com/EC http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITmythical ITmythicalframeset.htm> frameset.htm> 11 Legal Estate Definition, Business Dictionary .comViewed .comViewed at 24th April 2010,
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
11 | P a g e
iii. iii.
Life Life estate estate:: A concept concept used used in in common common and and statut statutory ory law law which which design designate atess the owner ownershi ship p of the land for the duration of a person’s life. In legal terms it is an estate in real property that ends at death12.
iv.
Demons Demonstra trativ tivee legacy: legacy: A gif giftt of a speci specific fic sum sum of money money with with a dire directi ction on that that is to to be paid out of a particular fund13.
DEED OF WILL The law of coparcener’s power of alienation is the product of judicial legislation. The relaxation of the old rule was done in section section 30 of the Hindu Succession Succession Act, 1956. Section 30 confers a right upon every Hindu to dispose of his property by a will or by any other testamentary disposition. The expression ‘Will’ has been defined by section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as, ‘The legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried to effect after death.’ The present section says that the disposal of property by will has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, Act, 1956. It permits a male Hindu to to dispose his will in a Mitakshara coparcenary property. The most significant fact which may be noticed in this connection is that while the Legislature was aware of the strict rule against alienation by way of gift, it only relaxed the rule in favour of disposition disposition by a Will the Interest Interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property. For some time a notion existed that this provision granted a Hindu coparcener the right to dispose of his share in the coparcenary property by a will, which was against the tenets of the normal Hindu law relating to Hindu coparcenary property. But the truth truth is althou although gh Secti Section on 30 makes makes a striki striking ng depart departure ure from from the existi existing ng law governi governing ng coparceners, it does not destroy the existence of a coparcenary, but all that it does is to grant the right of testamentary disposition to a Hindu coparcener which he did not enjoy earlier to this enactment. ESSENTIALS OF A WILL 12
Will (law), Absolute Astronomy,Viwed Astronomy,Viwed at 27th April 2010, 13 Supra Note Supra Note 9
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
12 | P a g e
•
Legal declaration
•
Disposition of property
•
Takes effect after death
CLASSIFICATION OF WILL AND GIFT IN HINDU LAW There are certain restrictions on the members of a coparcenary, one of them being that a coparcener cannot dispose of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property by gift nor can he alienate his interest even for value except in Bombay, Madras and Madhya Pradesh. The Legislature did not, therefore, deliberately provide for any gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property either to a stranger or to another coparcener. Therefore, the personal law of the Hindus, governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, is that a coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property by a Will, but he cannot make a gift of property, not even of his own interest in the property. Such transaction being void altogether there is no estoppel or other kind of personal bar which precludes the donor from asserting his right to recover the transferred property14.A coparcener, who has attained the age of majority with a sound mind, can make a will in the presence of two witnesses to dispose off his moveabl moveable/i e/immo mmovabl vablee proper property. ty. The testam testament ent will will only only come come to effect effect after after the death death of executant and subsequently property will go to the beneficiaries. Gifting would give effect to testament testament immediately. immediately. Under section 30 of the Hindu Succession Succession Act, 1956 a coparcener coparcener may dispose of his undivided interest by will. It is a settled law that a coparcener cannot dispose of vivos. his undivided interest in the joint family property by gift inter vivos.
RESTRICTIONS ON A WILL (Acc. to Indian Succession Act, 1925)
14
•
Transfer to an unborn is invalid - S.113
•
Transfer made to create perpetuity - S.114
•
Transfer to a class some of whom may come under above rules. - S.115
Sridhara Babu, Karnataka Land Laws, Viewed at 28 th April 2010,
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
13 | P a g e
•
Transfer to take effect on failure of prior Transfer. - S.116
INVALID WILLS (ACC. TO Indian Succession Act, 1925) •
Wills invalid due to fraud, coercion or undue influence - S.15, 16,17
•
Wills Void Due To Uncertainty - S.89
•
Will Void Due To Impossibility Of Condition - S. 124
•
Will void due to illegal or immoral condition - S.127
DEED OF GIFT: NOT VALID - THE CASE OF Baba OF Baba v. v. Timma (1884) The personal Law of the Hindus governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law is that a coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property by a will but he v. cannot make a gift of such interest. In the leading decision on the point is the case of Baba v. Timma15, where it has been held that a Hindu father, if unseperated, has no power, except for purposes warranted by special text, to make a gift to a stranger of ancestral estate, movable or immovable. In that case, the gift was made by the father to a stranger to the detriment of the son’s right in the property gifted. It was held that under the Hindu Law a voluntary alienation by gift of joint family property could not be made by an undivided coparcener, unless permitted by an express text. Thus, the cumulative effect, of Baba’s case is that a coparcener cannot make a gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property either in favour of a stranger or in favour of his relations16. DEED OF GIFT: VALID IF CONSENTED – THE CASE OF A.Perumalakkal v. Kumaresan Balakrishnan and Ors (1967) A gift by a coparcener to another coparcener is not valid, as are gifts without the consent of the coparceners, but valid if done is the only other coparceners consent to the arrangement, which they may well do by their mere acquiescence and adopting the transaction. The cases bearing out
15
ILR ( 1884 ) 7 Mad 357 ( FB ) Ponnusami v. Thatha and Ors., ILR 9 Madras, 273; Ramanna v. Venkata, ILR 11 Madras 246; Rottala Rungunatham Chetty v. Pulicat Ramasami Chetti, ILR 27 Madras, 162; Mayne’s Hindu Law, Eleventh Edition, Article 382 and Mulla’s Hindu Law, Fiteenth Edition, Article 258, referred to.
16
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
14 | P a g e
of this are numerous numerous17. In the leading cases of G. of G. Suryakantam v.G. Suryanarayanamurthy and Ors18and A.Perumalakk A.Perumalakkal al v. Kumaresan Kumaresan Balakrishnan Balakrishnan and Ors19 it was decided that by an alienation of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property, a coparcener cannot deprive the other coparceners of their right to the property. This legal proposition was further elaborated in the case of of Babu Babu Mother Mother Savavva Savavva Navelg Navelgund und and Ors. Ors. v. Gopina Gopinath th20 whic which h said said that that an individual member has no definite share in the coparcenery property. The object of this strict rule against alienation by way of gift is to maintain the jointness of ownership and possession of the coparcenary property. Even though the Privy Council recognized alienations by gift in the case of Suraj of Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh and Ors21 , such alienations were held by their Lordsh Lordships ips to be incons inconsist istent ent with with the strict strict theory theory of joint joint and undivi undivided ded Hindu Hindu family family.. Accor Accordi ding ng to the the old old law, law, alie aliena nati tion on by gift gift of undi undivi vided ded inte intere rest st by copar coparcen cener er is not not permissible. The legal aspect on this Court has now been finally settled by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Thamma of Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma22.
DEED OF GIFT: HELD VALID – THE CASE OF Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma (1987) In the case of Thamma of Thamma Venkata Subbamma vs. Thamma Rattamma23supreme court reversed the decision in which, the respondent executed a deed of settlement which was a deed of gift in purpose to in favour of another ano ther coparcener (his brother) conveying his entire undivided interest in the coparcenary but reserving a life interest to himself and also providing that after his death the other coparcener should maintain his wife. In a suit for partition and recovery of the property filed by the widow of the coparcener who executed a deed of settlement on the ground that the gift deed was a void document under the Hindu Law, the Trial Court held that the deed of settlement was void and inoperative under the Hindu Law in the absence of consent of the other coparcener. On appeal the High Court held that the deed of settlement was valid. In this appeal 17
Seth Lakshmi Chand v. Mt. Anandi, (1926) AIR P.C 54, Gunfayya Hammant v. Shriniwas Shriniwas Narayan (1937) AIR Bom. 51 18 AIR 1957 AP 1012 19 [1967] SC 560 20 AIR 2000 Kant 27 21 ILR 6IA 88 22 AIR 1987 SC 1775 23 Supra. Note Supra. Note 20
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
15 | P a g e
by special leave the question for consideration was whether a gift by a coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener is void or not. Respondents argued that it was a case of renunciation or o r relinquishment by Respondent of his interest in favour of his brother and his sons. It was the intention o f the donor that the property might be enjoyed by his brother and his sons and, excepting that the donor had reserved to himself a life interest, presumably for his maintenance, he gifted his entire interest in the coparcenary property to his brother. The gift should be construed as relinquishment or renunciation of his undivided interest by the donor in favour of the other coparceners. Although the gift is ostensibly in favour of his brother (beneficiary), the donor really meant to relinquish his interest in the coparcenany in favour of both his brother and his sons. The gift was, therefore, valid construing the same as renunciation or relinquishment by respondent of his interest in the coparcenary and, accordingly, the consent of other coparceners was immaterial. In the result, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was affirmed by Supreme Court though on a different ground. Dismissing the appeal by the widow, it was held by Supreme Court that a gift made by the coparcener to his brother should he construed as renunciation of his undivided interest in the coparcenary in favour of his brother and his sons, who were the remaining coparceners. A gift was, therefore, valid and consent of other coparceners was immaterial. SALE AND MORTAGE According to Bombay, Madras and Madhya Madh ya Pradesh high courts a coparcener has power to sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate for value his undivided interest without the consent of other coparceners24. In the rest of Mitakshara jurisdiction such alienations are not permitted and a coparcener has no power to alienate his undivided interest by sale or mortgage, without the consent of other coparceners25. DAYABAGA SCHOOL Under Dayabaga law, since every coparcener has an ascertained and specified share, he can alienate his value or gratuitously. Obviously he can dispose of his own share and not no t of others except with their consent. He can c an also lease out his portion of estate. 24
Pandu v. Goma AIR 1919 Bom 84 Lakshmi v. Kala AIR 1977 All 509
25
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
16 | P a g e
SOLE SURVIVING COPARCENAR A sole surviving coparcener has full right of alienation of the joint family property, but if at the time of alienation another coparcener is in the womb, on his birth, he can challenge such alienation. When the property passes on to the sole surviving coparcener, it assumes the character of separate property as long as he doesn’t have a son. The sole surviving coparcener has the full power of alienating the property the way he likes, by sale, by mortgage or gift since at the time of alienation there is no other member who has joint interest in the family property26. Such alienation cannot be challenged by a subsequently born or adopted son. But if another member was in the womb of his h is mother at the time of alienation, the sole surviving coparcener doesn’t have the power of alienation, ad if alienation has been made, such a member can challenge the alienation or he may ratify it on attaining majority. This power is not fettered by the contingency of an adoption being made by a widow in the family, a contingency which may operate at all.
RIGHT TO CHALLENEGE AN ALIENATION An improper alienation by karta is voidable at the instance of the other coparceners. It is now a settled position of law that an alienation made by the karta made by the karta without legal necessity or benefit of estate or in discharge of indispensable duties is not void but merely voidable at the instance of coparceners27. When a karta or a coparcener or the sole surviving coparcener oversteps his power for alienation the alienation can be challenged. It can be challenged the moment the person entitled to challenge comes to know kn ow of it and till it is not barred by limitation. Whenever alienation is challenged, the burden of proof is on the alienee to show it was for a valid purpose. A stranger who is a purchaser of a coparcener’s interest may challenge an improper alienation. But an alienating coparcener cannot challenge his own alienation: this is based on the principle that a grantor cannot derogate from his grant g rant28. A suit for injunction also lies for preventing an impending alienation29. In Bombay and Madras, when 26
Guramma v. Mallapa AIR 1964 SC 510 Raghubanchamni v. Ambika Prasad AIR Prasad AIR 1971 SC 1971 28 Bharat Singh v. Jeobodh Lal AIR Lal AIR 1934 All 891 29 Shiv Kumar v. Mool Chand AIR 1972 P.&H. 147 27
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
17 | P a g e
alienation is challenged by the coparcener, it will be set aside only to the extend of their interest in joint family property, as under these schools a coparcener has power of alienating his undivided interest by sale or mortgage30. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has expressed the view that when alienee has the possession of the alienated property, the coparcener cannot sue for a mere declaration that alienation is void. He must also sue for the consequential relief of possession31. It is also settled law that a coparcener who is in the womb of his h is mother at the time of alienation can get the alienation set aside after his birth. If alienation is made b y a father who has sons and before all the sons die another son is born to him, then even after the death of every son existing at the time of alienation, subsequently born child can challenged the alienation, provided that the right is not barred by b y limitation. The overlapping of lives gives him right32. It is necessary that at the time of his conception there must have existed an unexpired right among the other coparcener to challenge ch allenge the alienation. It is not necessary to take recourse to court if law of getting it declared void. A coparcener may unequivocally repudiate. He may file a suit to get it declared null and void33. Alienation is voidable, such as alienation by karta without legal necessity or benefit of estate34. A voidable alienation is valid as long as it is not challenged. The limitation may perfect the title of alienee. Any coparcener may file a suit to get the alienation is void in its totality. His right is only to sue for partition and he is only o nly entitled to mesne profits from the date when specific allotment of property is made in his favour and not forms the date of purchase or o r suit partition. When karta makes a sale for the satisfaction of his personal debts, the vendee has no equity.
30
Marrapa v. Rangasami (1990) 23 Mad 89; Ramapa 89; Ramapa v. Yellapa Air 1928 Bom 150 Gian Chand v. Krishen Singh AIR 1978 J & K 16 32 Shivaji v. Muralidhar AIR Muralidhar AIR 1954 Bom 386 (FB) 33 Krishnaian v. Gopalkrishna AIR 1974 SC 1911 34 Raghubanchamani v. Ambika AIR 1971 SC 776 31
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
18 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5 Judicial Pronouncements Pronouncements Shripad gajanan suthankar vs. Dattaram kashinath suthankar and ors 1974 AIR 878
This was a case of the rights of the adoptee under the adoption made after the partition and a deed of gift to one of the coparceners. First defendant was one o f sons of the testator. The other son died leaving his wife and daughter. A partition was made between testator and his sons in 1944. Allotment for residence and maintenance of K’s widow was made. Then the testator gifted away his share to the son of first defendant. After the Hindu Succession Act came into existence in 1956, the widow adopted adop ted her daughter’s son. She filed a suit for a fresh partition claiming a half share of the entire entire property ignoring the earlier earlier partition and gift. A son adopted by a widow of a deceased coparcener cannot claim the joint family property in the hands of a transferee from the heir of the last surviving coparcener, even though the transfer took place before the adoption. The Supreme Court held that partition should be remade and the plaintiff is awarded 1/3rd of the total property that was partitioned. The property that was gifted to the defendant is excluded from partition. The Court made following observations: 1. The doctrine doctrine of relati relation on back will not extend extend to a case where where a transfer transfer has already already been been made either by the sole surviving coparcener or by his heir. 2. The principl principlee is that when when a dispositi disposition on is made inter inter vivos vivos by one who who has full power power over property under which a portion of that property is carried away, no rights of a son
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
19 | P a g e
who is subsequently adopted can affect that portion which is disposed. Any disposition testamentary or inter vivos, lawfully made antecedent to the adoption is immune to challenge by the adopted son. 3. This rule rule was laid laid down to make make sure that that the adopted adopted son can can only claim claim a share share as if he were begotten and alive when the adoptive father breathed his last. Lawful alienation, in this context, means not necessarily for a family necessity but alienation made competently in accordance with law.
Kokila v. Swathanthira 2003 Mad SCC 69
In this case, question before the court was that whether the testamentary disposition of the father amongst his sons and their acceptance of the will would anyway affect the survivorship. In the present case as the will was executed before the existence of the act, the Will left by father is not valid in the eye of law and that Will does not have the effect of destroying the right of Hindu Succession Act, Succession Act, 1956 is 1956 is prospective. It cannot validate the Will survivorship. Sec.30 of Hindu made by father, who died prior to coming into force of the Act. Thus the property with the father was devolved upon the sons by way of survivorship. Pavitri Devi And Anr. vs Darbari Singh And Ors 1993 (3) ALT 25 SC
One Brahmadeo Singh, the son of Tuso Singh filed partition Title Suit against his brothers and their heirs claiming 1/6th share in the coparcenary properties mentioned in schedules attached to the plaint. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellant, Pavitri Devi, filed an application for substitution of her and her son as legal representatives. Her claim has been founded on two grounds, namely as the daughter of o f Brahmadeo Singh as well as the registered gift deed Ex.2 dated August 5, 1980 executed by her father giving his entire en tire share in the joint family property and put them in possession of 9.96 acres of land. Appellants contended that Brahmadeo Singh had power to dispose of his undivided share in the joint family property by testamentary disposition including by way of gift to his daughter. The interest held by him in the coparcenary property could be bequeathed by the gift deed. Section 6 of the Act provides that when a male Hindu dies, after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
20 | P a g e
Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary. If the deceased had left behind him a surviving female relative specified in Class I of the the Schedule, the interest of the the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under the Act and not by survivorship. Therefore by operation of Section 30 he was entitled to dispose of his undivided share and the interest in the coparcenary by testamentary disposition. Even though the court recognised recogn ised the fact that Pavitri Devi and her son were the legal representatives i.e. she is a successor in interest, the court rejected their claim of the appellant on that premise. Mitakshara law by which the Brahmadeo Singh was governed, he had no power to make gift g ift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to his concubine. But a gift by one coparcener of his undivided share to another coparcener, to the exclusion of the others is not invalid. Thamma Venkata Subbamma vs. Thamma Rattamma ILR 6IA 88
This was a landmark case in which Supreme Court for the first time validated a gift deed within the institution of coparcenary. Before this judgment, the deed of gift was prohibited in the case of ancestral property governed by the Mitakshara School Family in Hindu Law. A coparcener in a Joint Hindu executed a deed of gift in favour of another coparcener (his brother) conveying his entire undivided interest in the coparcenary but reserving a life interest to himself and also providing that after his death the other coparcener should maintain his wife. The widow of the coparcener filed a suit of partition against the one who executed a deed of gift on the ground that the deed of gift was a void document under the Hindu Law, the Trial Court held that the deed of gift was void and inoperative under the Hindu Law in the absence of consent of the other coparcener. coparcener. On appeal the High Court held that the deed of settlement settlement was valid. valid. In this appeal by special leave the question for consideration was whether a gift by a coparcener of his undivid undivided ed coparc coparcena enary ry intere interest st to another another coparce coparcener ner is void void or not. not. The argume argument nt of the respondent was that it was a case of renunciation or relinquishment of a coparcener's interest in favour of his brother and his sons. Dismissing the appeal it was held that a gift made by the coparcener to his brother should he construed as renunciation of his undivided interest in the coparcenary in favour of his brother and his sons, who were the remaining coparceners. A gift was, therefore, valid and consent of other coparceners was immaterial.
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
21 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6 Testamentary provision in Hindu Succession Act: A critical analysis Prior to the Succession Act, neither under the customary law nor under the Madras Act, nor under the Indian Succession Act, the interest of a coparcener in a Hindu Joint Family could have been disposed of by testamentary disposition. But s. 30 of the Succession Act made a definite change in the law by enabling a member of a coparcenary to dispose of his interest in the Hindu Joint Family coparcenary properties by a will. The first thing to be noticed is that on the demand for partition there is a division in status, and though partition by metes and bounds may not have taken place, that family can thereafter never be considered as an undivided family, nor can the interest of a coparcener be considered to be an undivided interest. It is a well-established principle in, the Hindu Law that a member of a joint Hindu Hindu family family has a right right to, intima intimate te his definite definite and unambi unambiguo guous us intent intention ion to the other members of the joint family that he will separate himself from family and enjoy his share in severalty. Such an unequivocal intention communicated to the, others will amount to a divisionin status and on, such division he will have a right to get a de facto division of his specific share of the joint family property, in which till then all of them had an undivided coparcenary interest, and in which none of them could claim that he had any right to any specific part thereof. Once the decision to divide has been unequivocally expressed and clearly intimated to his co- sharers, whether or not the other co-sharers agree, an immediate severance of the joint status is effected arid arid his right to obtain obtain and posses possesss the share to which which be is admit admittedl tedly y entitl entitled ed become becomess specified. THE AMENDMENT OF 2005
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
22 | P a g e
The recent amendments in the Hindu Succession Act, has led substantive change in the women’s right to property after a long gap of forty nine years. For a long time inheritance laws, assumed a tedious character mainly due to lack of political stability and courage to stand for common good even if offends some existing fundamental ideas. The act has made the daughter a member of the coparcenary. Agricultural property is no more protected and confined to men. No doubt that this historical historical legislation legislation will guide the country like a beacon, towards towards gender equality equality and women empowerment. DISCRIMINATION OF THE FAIRER SEX The Hindu succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 has – by a radical amendment – given a daughter of a coparcener a right by birth to become a coparcener cop arcener in a Mitakshara property. The property to which she became entitled is capable of being disposed of her h er by testamentary disposition. A necessary corollary of this amendment to authorise a female Hindu like a male Hindu to make a will or any other testamentary disposition of her interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary property. In the absence of this amendment there would have been litigation from the lowest court to apex court to settle whether a daughter is given only the right by birth in the coparcenary property or also the right to bequeath her h er interest in the property. The The wide widesp spre read ad beli belief ef whic which h exis existe ted d afte afterr the the pass passin ing g of the the 1956 1956 Act Act was was that that the the discrimination between daughters and sons were eliminated with the passing of the act. Little did the female population of the country realize that, this though seemingly a huge step in favour of gender justice, was in fact more a sleight of hand. Section 10 of the act, distributed the property of the Hindu male dying intestate equally among all the Class I heirs, as specified in the schedule. The roguery lies in customary Hindu law and concept of coparcenary. The Hindu succession act retained coparcenary. In fact, Section 6 specifically declares that, on death, the interest of a male Hindu in mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by survivorship to other members of the coparcenary and not by succession under the Act35. However, it laid down that the separate share of the deceased, computed through the device of deemed partition just before his death, would
35
Asha Nayar-Basu , Of Fathers And Sons, Viewed at 28 th April, 2010
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
23 | P a g e
devolve according to the Succession Act. The act failed to explain the logic behind such an exclusion which would take major share of the daughter’s property even though she is entitled to half share. The inequality which existed between son and daughter has now been removed by the amendm amendment ent.. For centur centuries ies,, Hindu Hindu fundam fundament entali alists sts have have been been citing citing spirit spiritual ual reason reasonss and inviolate customs as a ground for this discrimination and blatant preference for sons in this society. Even though justice has been served to deprived daughters across the country to a larger extend, the position of the mother vis-à-vis the coparcenary stays the same. Her claim is reduced into left out portion after the notional partition and be entitled to an equal share with other Class I heirs only from the separate share of the father computed at the time of the notional partition.
THE CONCLUSION While working on this project, one quintessential of the questions that passed through minds was, whether this provision provided enough utility, the society demands? The transferring of the power to make will or even gift to a coparcener will ensure those values which kept our families together or is it just another provisions to meet with commercialisation of our families and property they hold. Here we have Muslim model of will, which ensures that only 1/3rd of the property is passed through the deed of will and rest is passed by intestate succession. Analysing the current setup of our society and growing criminal indent, it can be inferred that Muslim law on testamentary succession is better suited to Indian conditions than the present Hindu law. With the passing of the 2005 amendment, it has elevated the status of the women into a whole new level. The property rights of the women were equalled to that of men. A Woman now posses the right to dispose the coparcenary property according to her will. She can also gift the property to any of the coparceners during her life time, but keeping a life-estate for herself intact.
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
24 | P a g e
References BOOKS, ARTICLES AND JOURNALS •
Desai, SA 2007, ‘Mulla ‘Mulla Hindu Law (2 Vols)’, 20th edition, Lexis Nexis, New Delhi.
•
Dr. Diwan, Paras 2006, ‘ Hindu Hindu Law’ , 2nd edition, Orient Publishing Company, Allahabad.
•
Nagpal, Ramesh Chandra 2008, ‘Modern Hindu Law’, 2nd edition, Eastern Publishing Company, Lucknow.
WEBILIOGRAPHY •
Indiankanoon.org
•
Manupatra.com
•
Rishabhdhara.com
•
Telegraphindia.com
•
Vlex.in
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNVERSITY OF LAW
