Partition underneath Hindu Joint Family Properties

Partition underneath Hindu Joint Family Properties

It is not necessary underneath Hindu law that the partition ought to be dead by a registered instrument solely. Even a family compromise between the coparceners would be ample to impact a partition and by virtue of that they become entitled to individual share and use thence.

According to the Supreme Court, the partition could also be partial or total. Partition may well be partial with regard to the members of the joint family or joint family property. Once a partition takes place, the presumption is concerning the entire partition. However wherever some members contend that the partition was partial with regard to members or property, the burden is on them to prove it.

A partition are often tormented by the daddy even throughout his life among his sons. A partition may additionally happen by (a) agreement, (b) establishment of a suit to it impact, (c) arbitration. It’s not necessary for the partition that the joint family property is split by equally of it. The severance within the joint standing may well be caused by any of the on top of modes and a few property may well be utilized by the coparceners as joint tenants. The subsequent modes of partition square measure important:—

Partition by Mere Declaration

Partition underneath the Mitakshara law may be a severance of joint standing and intrinsically, it’s a matter of individual volition. Associate unequivocal indication of a want by one member of the joint family to separate is ample to impact a partition. The filing of a suit for partition may be a clear expression of such associate intention.

The oral or written communications by a coparcener may well be enough to sever the joint standing however the communication may well be withdrawn with the consent of alternative coparceners and with its withdrawal partition wouldn’t happen.

It is not necessary that there ought to be a partition by agreement. It will happen by associate act or dealing of a coparcener, by that there may well be a sign of the separation of his interest. What form of act, conduct or expression of intention would disrupt joint standing, are selected the idea of facts in every case.

Where the communication of the intention to separate has been given with the intent to convey solely a threat to that with none real want to the current impact and soon the intention isn’t persuade, it’d not be enough for severance. There would be no separation on account of the actual fact that somebody of the members of the joint family has filed a suit to urge a declaration of financial condition for himself. In absence of any joint property, mere communication of the intention to separate would be enough.

In Raghvamma v. Chenchemma[1], the Supreme Court arranged down that it’s settled law that a member of joint Hindu family will evoke a separation in standing by a certain declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and revel in his share in severally. Severance in standing is caused by the unilateral exercise of discretion.

One cannot, however, declare or manifest his condition during a vacuum. To declare is to form proverbial, to claim to others. ‘Others’ should essentially be those tormented by the aforesaid declaration. So a member of a joint Hindu family seeking to separate him from others can have to be compelled to expose his intention to the opposite members of the family from whom he seeks to separate. The method of manifestation could vary with circumstances.

It is underlying the expression ‘declaration’ that it ought to be to the information of the persons affected thereby. Associate uncommunicated declaration isn’t higher than a mere formation or harboring of associate intention to separate. It becomes effective as a declaration solely when its communication to the person or persons UN agency would be affected thereby.

The Supreme Court in Puttorangamim v. Rangamma[2], reiterated that “it is, however, necessary that the member of the joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself should expose his intention to alternative members of the family from whom he seeks to separate. The method of communication could vary within the circumstances of every explicit case. The proof of a proper dispatch or receipt of the communication by alternative members of the family isn’t essential, nor its absence fatal to the severance of the standing.

Partition by Father

The father could cause a severance of sons even while not their consent. It’s the remnant of the traditional philosophy of ‘Patria Potestas’. The daddy throughout his time period is competent to impact such partition underneath Hindu law and it’d be binding on his sons.

It would be binding on the thusns not as a result of they need assented to that however as a result of the daddy has the facility to try and do so, though this power is subject to bound limitations on the idea of its utility and general interest of the family. It’s to be thought-about on whether or not it’s lawful in accordance with the spirit of Hindu law or not.

According to Supreme Court’s call is Kalyani v. Narayanan[3], a Hindu father underneath Mitakshara law will have an effect on a partition among his sons even within the time period of Karta of the joint family and such partition would be binding on them. In such a case he will outline and specify his share along side his sons and so bring about a separation among them. However in no case, Ho will divide the joint family property among the various members by virtue of a can, though he may get laid with their consent.

Where the daddy has divided the property unevenly among his sons, then thereto would be binding. However nobody will provide his consent to the unequal share on behalf of a minor. The sons have the correct to challenge the unequal division of shares or Associate in Nursing act of unilateral division of shares by the daddy, however it’ll haven’t any touching on the severance of their joint standing. Wherever the daddy has divided his self-acquired property unevenly among his sons, it couldn’t be challenged by them, neither is there a need of a registered deed to the present result.

Partition by Suit

Mere establishment of a partition suit disrupts the joint standing and a severance of joint standing right away takes place. A decree is also necessary for figuring out the resultant severance and for allotting definite shares however the standing of a litigator as separate within the estate is led to on his assertion of his right to separate whether or not he obtains a important judgment or not.

So albeit such suit was to be laid-off, that might not have an effect on the division in standing that should be command to possess taken place once the action was instituted. Ordinarily, a partition is full of instituting a suit to the present result. Just in case of a suit for partition in joint standing, father’s consent to the suit for partition isn’t any longer necessary. The son is totally eligible to file a suit for partition even throughout the lifespan of the daddy.

When the litigator files a suit for partition the share that he received within the earlier partition wouldn’t be free from charges and liabilities. If the creditors have obtained the decree against the joint family property, then even that share of the litigator that he failed to receive, would even be liable within the same manner as that of the opposite coparceners.

The on top of 9 modes of partition aren’t complete. There is also alternative things furthermore that, if expressed in equivocal intention for partition, are permissible.


The general rule mentioned on top of won’t apply wherever a suit is withdrawn before trial by the litigator on the bottom that he failed to wish separation any longer. In such a case there would be no severance of joint standing. Wherever the suit is tried to be dishonorable dealings resorted to with intent to form proof of separation, no severance within the joint standing takes place. If the suspect dies and also the suit square measure withdrawn on it ground there’s no separation.

Mere establishment of a suit for partition by a minor followed by the abatement of the suit by the death of the only suspect doesn’t have an effect on the severance of the joint standing.

Author: Ayush Srivastava,
Prayag vidhi Mahavidyalaya 1st year / law

Leave a Comment