Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

91.In para-12 Pavithri Devi vs Darbari Singh and another (1993) 4 SCC 392, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : -

2.In Dwarampudi Nagaratnamba KunukuR amayya [(1968) 1 SCR 43 : AIR 1968 SC 253] this Court held that under the Madras School of Mitakshara law by which V was governed, he had no power to make gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to his concubine. But a gift by one coparcerner of his undivided share to another coparcener, to the exclusion of the others is not invalid (Thamma Venkata subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma[(1987) 3 SCC 294 : AIR 1987 SC 1775] ) . This Court in Mukund Singh v. Wazir Singh [(1972) 4 SCC 178] held that a gift of coparcener's property by a member is void. In other words it is settled law that a disposition intra vivos by gift of coparcenary property except either with the consent of other coparceners or between coparceners or in exceptional circumstances is void. Since the gift being not for consideration is void in toto and http://www.judis.nic.in operates eoinstanti during the lifetime of the donor, it is not a testamentary succession under Section 30 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act, therefore, brought about change in law of testamentary disposition of a Hindu coparcener of his interest in coparcenary property governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law worked out in accordance with Section 55 read with Schedule III of Indian Succession Act or any other law in force to the above extent. The appellant, donee acquires no interest by devolution under the gift to represent the interest of the deceased plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC. Therefore, though for different reasons, we uphold the finding of the High Court in this behalf that the appellant is not a successor-in-interest by devolution by operation of Order 22 Rule 10. Accordingly we reject the claim of the appellant on that premise”