Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"6. 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 : (Emphasis supplied) Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such a female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as- the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship. (Emphasis supllied) Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub--section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,

17. The question that arises in this appeal is as to whether a son born after 1956 would be entitled to seek partition as a coparcener of the property allotted to his father at a partition between his father and brothers, or his father or his grand father and others? To put it in otherwise, whether a son born after 1956 would be entitled to file a suit for partition of the property that devolved on his father under Section-6, even during the life time of his father? The difference between the properties that devolves on the coparcener under Section-6 and the properties that is inherited by a coparcener under Section-8 has already been noticed.

(vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.

20. The Division Bench had made it very clear that only the property which is inherited by application of Section-8 or by application of proviso to Section-6 would devolve by intestate succession and not by survivorship. It should also be pointed out that atleast four two judge Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1) Dharma Shamrao Agalawe vs. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe & Ors 1988 SCC (2) 126; 2) Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 419 and Anar Devi vs. Parmeshwari Devi reported in (2006) 8 SCC 656 and Prakash vs. Phulavathi 2016 (2) LW 865 have held that irrespective of date of birth, a son of a male Hindu who is possessed of a joint family property, which had been allotted to him either in a partition or which had devolved on him at a notional partition, assumed as per the explanation to Section-6, would acquire rights by birth in the said property. After the amendment of Section-6 by Act 39 of 2005, there was a raging controversy regarding the applicability of the Act. Questions were posed as to whether the Act is prospective or retrospective.