Supreme court on joint family property and coparcenary rights

When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act.

If a member of joint family, acquired property in his own name in the presence of ancestral nucleus, it shall be presumed to be joint family property.

Characteristics of a Joint Family Property

The characteristic feature of a Joint Family Property are:

Ancestral Property: Property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father’s father, father’s father’s father, is ancestral property.

• This property should be four generation old.
• It should not have been divided by the users in the joint Hindu family as once a division of the property takes place, the share or portion which each Coparceners gets after the division becomes his or her self acquired property.
• The right to share in ancestral or coparcenary property accrues by birth itself, unlike other form of inheritance, where inheritance opens only on the death of the owner.
• Properties inherited from mother, grandmother, uncle and even brother is not ancestral property. Property inherited by will and gift are not ancestral properties.
• Self-acquired property can become ancestral property if it is thrown into the pool of ancestral properties and enjoy in common.

Joint family property (Self acquired property thrown into common):  Property acquired by individual members, but thrown into common pool of joint property. Characterized by:

• By blending of individual property with joint family property.
• A property which has became a subject to joint family property.

Coparcenary Rights

Coparcenary Rights refers to the rights of members of a joint family to inherit and manage joint family property. A coparcener is a person who is entitled to a share in the coparcenary property by birth. Earlier, only male descendants were considered coparceners, but post- 2005, daughters have been granted equal rights. Coparcenary extends up to four generations, meaning it includes the father, son, grandson, and great-grandson in the male line. The karta, usually the eldest male member of the family, manages the property but does not hold absolute ownership.

Case laws

Prakash vs Phulvati

On oct 16, 2015

Showing the context in which coparcenary property doctype: judgement appears in the document.

The suit, no doubt, might have been instituted in the year 1992 and even assuming  that it was four years after the demise of Yeshwanth Chandrakanth Upadhye, the position so far as the parties are concerned who are all members of joint family, in term section 6 as amended by Act no. 39 of 2005 is that a female member is, by a fiction of law created in terms of the amended provision also becomes a coparcener and has a right in joint family property by birth. They are also sharer members of the coparcenary property at par with all male members. When a partition takes coparceners succeed to the property in equal measure. Such is the legal position in term of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Act No. 39 of 2005 and as declared by the supreme court in the case of G.S. Sekar (supra). The only exception carved out to the applicability and operation of section 6 of The Hindu Succesion Act as amended by Act No. 39 of 2005 being a situation or a factual position where there is partition which had been affected by a registered partition deed or by a decree of the court which has attained finality prior to 20.12.2004 in terms of sub-section (5) of section 6.

It was held that amended provisions could not be retrospectively applied and the father and daughter both need to be alive at the date of the amendment for the provision to be applicable in the case. This idea was overruled much later recently by landmark case of Vineeta sharma V. Rakesh sharma (2020). Following the route was Arunachala Gounder V. Ponnuswamy (2022), in which the supreme court held that the self-acquired property of Hindu male dying intestate would devolve by inheritance and not succession and a daughter will be entitled to inherit such property as well as the Coparcenary property, the condition of rights of women in terms of property has been crystallized in a good direction.

Danamma@Suman Surpur V. Amar

1Feb 2018

In this case, Gurulingappa sarvadi, The propositus of Hindu joint family died in 2001, leaving behind a widow and 4 children; 2 daughters Danamma and Mahananda and 2 sons Vijay and Arun kumar.

Amar s/o Arun kumar filed suit for partition and separate ownership deed. However, he refused to give any share to daughters on the ground that they were born before the amendment and furthermore, both of them received dowry during there marriage.

The lower court (in 2007) rejected the appeal as they were convinced that both the daughters received the dowry and they were born before the amendment and have therefore surrendered their right to claim coparcenary property.

With respect to the first issue, it was held that objective and intention of legislature was to make the act equal for both men and women, therefore the court stated that the amendment act of 2005 will apply on all daughters whether born before or after the commencement of the act provided  that they are alive on the day the modified act of 2005 was enacted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling on joint family property and coparcenary rights are far reaching implications for the family property disputes in India. By recognizing daughters equal rights to inherit joint family property, the Supreme court has taken a significant step towards promoting gender equality and challenging traditional patriarchal norms.

Reference

• Family law bare act
• Online websites
• Indian kanoon