“COPARCENARY WITHIN COPARCENARY”

A project submitted in partial fulfilment of the course Family Law – 2,

Semester 4 during the academic year 2017-18.

Submitted By:

SWATI KUMARI

1571

BA.LLB.

Submitted To:

Puja Srivastav

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is my privilege to record my deep sense to perform gratitude to those who helped me in
completion of this project.

In making of this project many people helped me immensely directly or indirectly. I

sincerely acknowledge the help rendered to me by our faculty Mrs Puja Srivastav , who had
given me an idea and encouragement in making this project. I also acknowledge the help of
library staff and my friends for being cordial in order to make conducive environment of the
CNLU Hostel.

Swati Kumari

2
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled “Coparcenary
within coparcenary carried out under the supervision of Mrs Puja Srivastav. I have not submitted
this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my
Project Report.

Swati Kumari

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

13/04/2018

3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(1) Aim and Objective

The aim of the project is to study and analyse the laws relating to coparcenary within
coparcenary.

(2) Scope and Limitation

The scope of the project extends to identifying the need to analyse the laws relating to
Coparcenary body formation within a Hindu joint family. I tried to explain the position of such
laws in India by going through old theories of Mitakshara Law. The project is based on doctrinal
method of research as field work on this topic is quite impossible. I have mainly used the internet
to obtain web articles and write ups. Due to lack of expertise and time constraints, I had to use
secondary sources to do the research work which is the limitation of this project.

(4) Chapterisation

I have divided the project into various headings, each dealing with different concepts of
Coparcenary body. I have discussed elaborately, the various aspects of registration. Further, I
have dealt with the rights which can be exercised by such coparceners.

(5) Sources of Data

 Books
 Bare Act
(6) Method of Writing

The method of writing followed in this project is both analytical and descriptive.

(7) Mode of Citation

Uniform mode of citation has been followed hinting at the Harvard Law School’s Bluebook for
this project.

4
 CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT……………………………………………………………………03

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………...…………………….04

3. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..05

COPARCENARY BODY………………………………………………………….06

JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY……………………………………………10

4. COPARCENARY WITHIN COPARCENARY……………………………………………15

5. RIGHTS OF SUCH COPARCENARS……………………………………………………..17

6. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………...19

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………20

5
 INTRODUCTION

A Hindu joint family consists of the common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants upto
any generation together with the wife or wives (or widows) and unmarried daughters of the
common ancestor and of the lineal male descendants. The existence of the common ancestor is
necessary for bringing a joint family into existence, for its continuance common ancestor is not a
necessity. 
According to Sir Dinshah Mulla, “A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended
from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A daughter ceases
to be a member of her father's family on marriage, and becomes a member of her husband's
family.
A joint and undivided family is the normal condition of Hindu society. An undivided Hindu
family is ordinarily joint not only in estate, but also in food and worship. The existence of joint
estate is not an essential requisite to constitute a joint family and a family, which does not own
any property, may nevertheless be joint. Where there is joint estate, and the members of the
family become separate in estate, the family ceases to be joint. Mere severance in food and
worship does not operate as a separation.
The property of a joint family does not cease to be joint family property belonging to any such
family merely because the family is represented by a single male member who possesses rights
which an absolute owner of a property may possess. It may even consist of two females
members. There must be at least two members to constitute Joint Hindu family. A single male or
female cannot make a Hindu joint family even if the assets are purely ancestral. 
In Narenderanath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax1, the Supreme Court held that the
expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the wealth Tax Act used in the sense in which a Hindu
joint family is understood in the personal law of Hindus and a joint family may consist of a
single male member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme of the Wealth
Tax Act to suggest that a Hindu undivided family as assessable unit must consist of a least two
male members.

1
AIR 1965 AP 447, 1967 65 ITR 579 AP

6
In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan2 there was a joint family
consisting of a father and his wife and a son and his wife, the son being the present assessee. On
the death of father the Question raised is whether the assessee is to be assessed as an individual
or as a member of the joint Hindu family, It was held that the son's right over the property is not
absolute because two females in the family has right of maintenance in the property, therefore
the income of the assessee should be taxed as the income of a Hindu undivided family.
In Anant v. Shankar3 it was held that on the death of a sole surviving coparcener, a Hindu Joint
Family is not finally terminated so long as it is possible in nature or law to add a male member to
it. Thus there can also be a joint family where there are widows only. 

COPARCENERY BODY

A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body that the joint family. It includes only those
persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. These are the sons,
grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being, in other
words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent.
Ancestral property is a species of coparcenary property. As stated above if a Hindu inherits
property from his father, it becomes ancestral in his hands as regards his son. In such a case, it is
said that the son becomes a coparcenar with the father as regards the property so inherited, and
the coparcenary consists of the father and the son. However, this does not mean that coparcenary
can consist only of the father and his sons. It is not only the sons but also the grandsons and great
grandsons who acquire an interest by birth in the coparcenary property. Coparcenary begins with
a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees
counting from and inclusive of such ancestor. The Mitakshara concept of coparcenary is based
on the notion of son's birth right in the joint family property.
Though every coparcenary must have a common ancestor to start with, it is not to be supposed
that every extant coparcenary is limited to four degrees from the common ancestor. When a
member of a joint family is removed more than four degrees from the last holder, he cannot
demand a partition, and therefore he is not a coparcenar. On the death, however, of the last
2
(1935) 37 BOMLR 692, 159 Ind Cas 424
3
AIR 1950 Bom 362, (1950) 52 BOMLR 283, ILR 1950 Bom 358

7
holder, he would become a member of the coparcenary, if he was fifth in descent from him and
would be entitled to a share on partition, unless his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had
all predeceased the last holder. Whenever a break of more than three degrees occurs between any
holder of property and the person who claims to enter the coparcenary after his death the line
ceases in that direction and the survivorship is confined to those collaterals and descendants who
are within the limit of four degrees.
In Ceylon- Attorney-General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar4 case a father and his
son constituted a joint family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The father and the
son were domiciled in India and had trading and other interests in India. The undivided son died
and father became the sole surviving coparcener in a Hindu Undivided family to which a number
of female members belonged. In this the court said that the widows in the family including the
widow of the predeceased son had the power to introduce coparceners in the family by adoption
and that power was exercised after the death of son. 
In Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-Tax5, Mysore a family consisting of father,
his wife, his two unmarried daughters and his adopted son. After the death of father question
arises whether the sole male surviving coparcener of the Hindu joint family, his widowed mother
and sisters constitute a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of the Income tax Act ? In
this case it was held by the court property of a joint family does not cease to belong to the family
merely because the family is represented by a single coparcener who possesses rights which an
owner of property may possess. The property which yielded the income originally belonged to a
Hindu undivided family. 
In Moro Vishvanath v. Ganesh Vithal plaintiffs and defendants are descendants of one Udhav.
The defendants are all fourth in descent from him. The plaintiffs, however are, some fifth, and
others sixth in descent from him. The question, however, whether, assuming them to be
undivided, the plaintiffs are entitled to sue at all for a partition according to Hindu Law, is one of
considerable importance and difficulty. It was urged that Plaintiffs cannot claim from the
defendants any partition of property descended from that common ancestor. It was held that upon
a consideration of the authorities cited, it seems to me that it would be difficult to uphold the
appellants' contention that a partition could not, in any case be demanded by descendants of a
common ancestor more than four degrees removed, of property originally descended from him. 
4
1967 AIR 657, 1967 SCR (1) 965
5
1966 AIR 1523, 1966 SCR (3) 224

8
Suppose a coparcenary consisted originally of A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H, with A as the common
ancestor. Suppose A dies first, then B, then C, then D, and then E, and that G has then a son I,
and H has a son J and J has a son K. On E's death the coparcenary will consist of F,G,H,I,J and
K. Suppose that G,H and J die one after another , and the only survivors of the joint family are
F,I and K. Are I and K coparceners with F? Yes, though I is fifth in descent from A, and K is
sixth in 
descent from A. The reason is that either of them can demand a partition of the family property
from Here the coparcenary consists of three collaterals, namely, F,I and K.
The essence of a coparcenary under Mitakshara law is unity of ownership. The ownership of the
coparcenary property is in the whole body of coparceners. According to the true notion of an
undivided family governed by Mitakshara law, no individual member of that family, whilst it
remains undivided, can predicate, of the joint and undivided property, that he, that particular
member, has a definite share. His interest is a fluctuating interest, capable of being enlarged by
deaths in the family, and liable to be diminished by births in family. It is only on partition that he
becomes entitled to a definite share. The most appropriate term to describe the interest of a
coparcener in coparcenary property is 'undivided coparcenary interest'. If a Mitakshara
coparcener dies immediately on his death his interest devolves on the surviving coparceners.
The Supreme Court has summarised the position and observed that the coparcenary property is
held in collective ownership by all the coparceners in a quasi-corporate capacity. The incidents
of coparcenary are :
1) The lineal male descendants of a person upto the third generation, acquire on birth ownership
in the ancestral properties of such person;
2) such descendants can at any time work out their rights by asking for partition;
3) till partition each member has got ownership extending over the entire property 
conjointly enjoyment of the properties is common;
4) as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the 
properties is common;
5) no alienation of the property is possible unless it is for necessity, without the 
concurrence of the coparceners and
6) the interest of a deceased member passes on his death to the surviving 
coparceners. 

9
Every coparcener and every other member of the joint family has a right of maintenance out of
the joint family property. The right of maintenance subsists through the life of the member so
long as family remains joint. No female can be a coparcener under Mitakshara law. Even wife,
though she is entitled to maintenance. 
Difference between Joint Hindu Family and Coparcener:
1) In order to constitute a Joint Hindu family the existence of any kind of property is not required
whereas in Coparcenary there exists a ancestral property.
2) Joint Hindu family consists of male and female members of a family whereas in Coparcenary
no female can be a coparcener.
3) Coparceners are members of the Joint Hindu Family whereas all the members of Joint Hindu
family are not Coparceners.

Dayabhaga School on Coparcener and Joint Hindu Family :

According to the Dayabhaga law, the sons do not acquire any interest by birth in ancestral
property. Their rights arise for the first time on the father's death. On the death they take such of
the property as if left by him, whether separate or ancestral, as heirs and not by survivorship.
Since the sons do not take any interest in ancestral property in their father's lifetime, there can be
no coparcenary in the strict sense of the word between a father and sons according to the
Dayabhaga law. The father can dispose of ancestral property, whether movable or immovable by
sale, gift, will or otherwise in the same way as he can dispose of his separate property. Since
sons do not acquire any interest by birth in ancestral property, they cannot demand a partition of
such property from the father. A coparcenary under the Dayabhaga law could thus consist of
males as well as females. Every coparcenar takes a defined share in the property, and he is owner
of that share. It does not fluctuate with birth and deaths in family.

10
JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY

Mitakshara divides property into two classes, namely, apratibandha daya or unobstructed
heritage, and sapritibanda daya or obstructed heritage. Property in which a person acquires an
interest by birth is called unobstructed heritage, because the accrual of the right to it is not
obstructed by the existence of the owner. The right to it arises from the mere fact of their birth in
the family, and they become coparceners with their paternal ancestor in such property
immediately on their birth, ancestral property is unobstructed heritage. All properties inherited
by a Hindu male from a direct male ancestor, not exceeding three degrees higher to him is called
apratibandha daya.
Property, right to which accrues not by birth but on the death of the last owner without leaving
male issue, is called obstructed heritage. It is called obstructed, because the accrual of the right to
it is obstructed by the existence of the owner. Thus the property which devolves on parents,
brothers, nephews, uncles, etc., upon the death of the last owner, is obstructed heritage. These
relations do not take a vested interest in the property by birth. Their right to it arises for the first
time on the death of the owner. 
Coparceners can restrain the holder of sapratibandha daya from alienating it, while in case of
apratibandha daya its holder, so long as he is living, has absolute rights of alienation over it: he
may gift it inter inter vivos or by will, he may sell it or mortgage. Unobstructed heritage
devolves by survivorship, obstructed heritage, by succession. 
The distinction between obstructed and unobstructed heritage is peculiar only to Mitakshara
School. According to Dayabhaga, all heritages are obstructed, for, according to the doctrines of
that school, no person, not even a son, takes an interest by birth in the property of another.
Dayabhaga does not recognise the principle of survivorship.

Joint Family Property

The Joint Hindu family is purely a creature of Hindu law, and those who own it are called
coparceners. Property jointly acquired by the members of a joint family with the aid of ancestral
property is joint family property. The Hindu joint family property is like a big reservoir in which
property flows in from various sources and from which all members of joint family drew out to

11
fulfill their multifarious needs. The joint family property may flow into it from various sources.
Property according to the Hindu law, may be divided into two classes, namely :-

1. Ancestral Property 
All property inherited by a Hindu male from his father, father's father, or father's father's father,
is ancestral as regards his male male issue, even enough it was inherited by him after his death of
a life-tenant. A father cannot change the character of joint family property into absolute property
of his son by merely marking a will and bequeathing it or part of it to the son as if it was the self-
acquired property of the father. In the hands of the son the property will be ancestral property
and the natural or adopted son of that son will take interest in it and be entitled to it by
survivorship as joint family property. Where a number of sons inherit their father's self-acquired
property, they hold it as joint family property if at the time of his death they are living as
members of a joint family.
In Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh it was stated that judgment that unless the lands came “by descent
from a lineal male ancestor in the male line, they are not deemed ancestral in Hindu Law.”
Property acquired by a father by adverse possession would not be ancestral property in his hands
and his sons would not take interest in it by birth. In a case the Privy Council held that a maternal
uncle is not an ancestor, and it has accordingly been held that property inherited from a maternal
uncle is not ancestral property.
In Chelikani Venkayyamma v. Venkatar Amanayyamma the property which had descended from
the maternal grand-father to his two grandsons. On the death of one of the grandson the widow
of the deceased claimed to recover a moiety of the estate from the surviving grandson(Brother).
The question was whether the property of the maternal grandfather descended, on the death of
his daughter, to her two sons jointly with benefit of survivorship. Their Lordships decided that
the estate was governed by the rule of survivorship, and the claim of the widow was, therefore
negatived. This decision of the court was criticsed.
In Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai one G inherited certain property from
his maternal grandfather J. Under a will made by G the property which G inherited from his
maternal grandfather was to go to his son B and on the death the property was to vest in B's
widow, Giri Bala. During the life time of B, in an execution of a money decree against him the
said property was sold. B then brought a suit, claiming possession of the property. The validity

12
of the will executed by G is challenged on the ground that the testator had no authority to dispose
of the property, as it belonged to a Hindu coparcenary consisting of himself and his son. In their
Lordships' opinion the estate which was inherited by G, from his maternal grandfather cannot be
held to be ancestral property in which his son had an interest jointly with him. G consequently
had full power of disposal over that estate, and the devise made by him in favour of his daughter-
in-law could not be challenged by his son or any other person. ON the death of her husband, the
devise in her favour came into operation and she became the absolute owner of the village
property, as of the remaining estate; and the sale of that village in execution proceedings against
her husband could not adversely affect her title. 
Property inherited by a person from collaterals, such as a brother, uncle, etc, or property
inherited by him from a female is his separate property. The share which a coparcener obtains on
partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. If the coparcener
dies without leaving male issue, it passes to his heirs by succession. Accumulations of income of
ancestral property, property purchased or acquired out of income proceeds of sale of ancestral
property and property purchases out of such proceeds are ancestral property. 
In C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar6 case, issue was whether
property obtained by a gift or will from paternal ancestor are to be regarded as ancestral or self-
acquired properties. In this case there were allegations that there were joint property of a family
consisting of himself, his father and his brothers and that he was entitled in low to one-third
share in the same. Plaintiff and his brother are both sons are from first wife of their father, who
predeceased her husband. The father asserts an exclusive title to the joint family property
denying any right of his sons. Father claimed that some of the property is his self acquired
property and other properties were self-acquired property of his father and he got them under a
will executed by his father. In connection to this case the court referred the case of Ram Balwant
v. Rani Kishori. In this case the Lordship held that chap.1,Sec.1 verse 47of Mitakshara contained
only moral or religious precepts while those in S.5, verses 9 and 10 embodied rules of positive
law. It was held that the father of a joint family governed by Mitakshara law has full and
uncontrolled powers of disposition over his self acquired immovable property and his male issue
could not interfere with these rights in any way. Further in Muddan Gopal v. Ram Buskh it was
held that a Mitakashara father is not only competent to sell his self-acquired immovable property

6
1953 AIR 495, 1954 SCR 243

13
to a stranger without the concurrence of his sons. While referring another case Sital v. Madho
and Bawa Misser v. Rajah Bishen where it was held that a Mitakshara father can make a gift of
his self acquired property to one of his sons to the detriment of another and he can make even an
unequal distribution amongst his heirs. Going through above cases court concluded that a
property gifted by a father to his son could not become ancestral property in the hands of the
donee simply by reason of the fact that the donee got it from his father or ancestor. On reading
the will as a whole the court held that it becomes clear that the testator intended the legatees to
take the properties in absolute right as their own self-acquisition without being fettered in any
way by the rights of their sons and grandsons. 
Son takes at his birth in the ancestral property is wholly independent of his father. He does not
claim through the father, and, therefore, a transfer is allowed by law, cannot affect the interest of
the son in the property. However, the father has a special power of disposal of ancestral property
for certain purposes. The father has the power of making within reasonable limits gifts of
ancestral movable property without the consent of his sons. A Hindu father of other managing
member has power to make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property for
pious purposes. A member of a joint family cannot dispose of by will a portion of the property
even for charitable purposes and even if the portion of the property bears a small proportion to
the entire estate. 

2. Separate Property
Property acquired in any of the following ways is the separate property of the acquirer; it is
called 'self acquired' property. Following are the some examples of Separate Property :-
a) Obstructed Heritage 
b) A gift of a small portion of ancestral movable made through affection by a 
father to his male issue is his separate property.
c) Property granted by Government to a member of a joint family.
d) Ancestral property lost to the family, and recovered by member without the 
assistance of joint family property.
e) Income of separate property
f) Property obtained as his share on partition by a coparcener who has no male 
issue

14
g) Property held by sole surviving Coparcenar when there is no widow in existence who has
power to adopt.
h) Separate earnings of a member of a joint family.
i) Gains of learning.
In Dipo v. Wassan Singh7, plaintiff sued to recover possession of the properties which belonged
to her brother, who died. She claimed to be the nearest heir. The defendants the sons of paternal
uncle contest that they were preferential heirs according to custom, as the whole of the land was
ancestral in the hands of the deceased. The court said that properties in the hands of deceased are
properties which originally belonged to his ancestors. But deceased was the last male holder of
the property and he had no male issue. There was no surviving member of a joint family, be it a
descendant or otherwise, who could take the property by survivorship. Property inherited from
paternal ancestors is, of course, ancestral property' as regards the male issue of the propositus,
but, it is his absolute property and not ancestral property as regards other relations. It was held
that the defendants were collaterals of deceased and as regards them the property was not
'ancestral property' and hence the plaintiff was the preferential heir.

7
1983 AIR 846, 1983 SCR (3) 20

15
 COPARCENARY WITHIN COPARCENARY
It is possible that separate coparcenaries may exist within a coparcenary as there is no limitation
on the number of members that a coparcenary may have. There can be a big coparcenary
consisting of father, his sons, grandsons and great grandsons. There can be a coparcenary
comprising sons and their descendants also. If the father has separate property, on his death, the
sons inherit the property jointly. If a child is born is born to one of the sons he will form a
coparcenary within a coparcenary.

 Hindu law recognizes only the entire joint family or one more branches of that family as a
corporate unit or units and that the property acquired by that unit in the manner recognized by
law should be considered as joint family property. Coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law. The
law also recognizes a branch of the family as a subordinate corporate body.

For instance, a coparcenary consists of A and his three sons B, C, D and two sons of C, CS and
CS1 and three sons of D, DS, DS1 and DS2. C and D acquire separate properties and die. CS and
CS1 inherit the separate property of C and between themselves constitute a coparcenary. DS,
DS1 and DS2 inherit D’s properties and constitute a coparcenary. In the coparcenary headed by
A two sub-coparcenaries came into existence. If sons are born to CS, CS1 or DS, DS1 or DS2
they will get a birth right not merely in the coparcenary headed by A but also in their respective
sub-coparcenaries.

But if some of the members of the joint family, either some members of a branch or some
members of different branches, acquired some property jointly, they cannot clothe it with the
character of joint family property. The right inter se between such members who acquire
property would be subject to the terms of the agreement where under it was required.

Under the tax statutes the bigger HUF consisting of all branches is a separate tax entity, while the
smaller HUF’s within the bigger HUF are each a separate tax entity in respect of the properties
jointly held by each smaller HUF’s. It should be kept in view for the tax purpose the main
coparcenary and smaller coparcenaries within the main are called HUF’s and not coparcenary, as
HUF is a tax unit and not the coparcenary.

16
Under the tax statutes the bigger HUF consisting of all branches is a separate tax entity, while the
smaller HUF’s within the bigger HUF are each a separate tax entity in respect of the properties
jointly held by such smaller HUF’s. It should be kept in a view for the tax purpose the main
coparcenary and smaller coparcenaries within the main are called HUF’s and not coparcenary, a
HUF is a tax unit and not the coparcenary.

The Supreme Court held that under the Income Tax Act, it is not predicated of a Hindu
undivided family as a taxable entity that it must consist of two or more male members.

17
 RIGHTS OF SUCH COPARCENARS
1) Community of interest and unity of possession- no coparcener is entitled to any special
interest in the coparcenary property nor is he entitled to exclusive possession of any part
of the property.
2) Share of Income -a member of a joint Mitakshara family cannot predicate at any given
moment what his share in the joint family property is. His share becomes defined only
when partition takes place. The whole income of the family must be brought to the
common chest and there dealt with according to the modes of enjoyment by the members
of an undivided family.

It is competent to the manager to allot to any individual member, a portion of the family
property to enable him to maintain himself out of its income. Any savings out of the
income and investment of such savings will be the separate property of the member.

3) Joint possession and enjoyment- each coparcener is entitled to joint possession and
enjoyment of the family property as well as the separate property of his descendants, to
which he is entitled to by being a part of a sub coparcenary i.e. coparcenary within
coparcenary. If any coparcenary is excluded from joint possession or enjoyment, he is
entitled to enforce his right by a suit. He is not bound to sue for partition. Such
coparceners together possess the title to the coparcenary property.
4) Every coparcenary in an undivided family is entitled to be maintained out of the family
estate i.e. each coparcener along with his wife and children is entitled to a right of
residence in the family dwelling house and a right of maintenance from put of the joint
family funds.
5) Right to enforce partition-
The interest of a coparcenary in the coparcenary property is a fluctuating interest that
changes with the deaths and births of other coparceners in the family. A coparcener is
competent to convert this fluctuating and probable share to a fixed and specific share in
the property by demanding a partition. Thus every adult coparcener is entitled to enforce
a partition of the family estate.

18
6) Alienation of undivided interest- a coparcener is empowered to renounce his undivided
share in the joint family property in favour of all remaining coparceners. Renunciations
must be of entire interest and in favour of all the remaining coparceners. However, sons
living at the time of such renunciation are not effected by the act of the other. No
coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in coparcener property by gift
7) Right of survivorship- where a coparcenary dies before partition of the coparcenary
property, his undivided interest in the property devolves, not by succession upon his
heirs, but by survivorship upon the surviving coparceners. This right of the surviving
coparceners to enlarge their shares in the property is due the application of the doctrine of
survivorship.
8) Karta- a coparcener who is a Karta has certain special powers of disposition over the
coparcenary property which no other coparcener has.
9) Right of Alienation-
As a general Mitakshara coparcener does not have a right to dispose of his undivided
share in the coparcenary property by alienation, unless all the coparceners give a valid
consent to it.

19
 CONCLUSION

By the abovementioned arguments and theories regarding formation and existence of a

coparcenary body within a Hindu joint family, it can be concluded that separate coparcenaries
may exist within a coparcenary. As there is no limitation on the number of members that a
coparcenary may have, there can be a big coparcenary consisting of father, his sons, grandsons
and great grand sons or there can be a coparcenary comprising of sons and their descendants
also. If the father has separate property, on his death, the sons inherit the property jointly. If a
child is born is born to one of the sons he will form a coparcenary within a coparcenary.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED

 Saxena, Poonam Pradhan, Family Law Lectures, family law II, Second Edition, 2009, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur
 Diwan, Paras, Family Law, Eighth Edition, Reprint 2008, Allahabad Law Agency

WEBSITES REFERRED
1) www.legalservicesindia.com
2) www.manupatra.com
3) www.westlawindia.com
4) www.scribd.com
5) www.books.google.com
6) www.indiankanoon.com

21