effected a partition between them and put an end to the coparcenary. Even assuming that it did, we hold that the plaintiff's adoption ... coparcenary, and it is the contention of the defendants-appellants that by reason of this partition, the coparcenary came to an end,, and that
death of any
coparcener does not bring to an end any coparcenary. An increase or
decrease in the coparcenary interest independently held by each
coparcener ... coparcener/father does not automatically lead to the end of
coparcenary, which may continue with other coparceners alive. Thus,
the coparcener, from whom the daughter
will had S stated that be wanted to put
an end to the coparcenary. Indeed, the very assertion
therein-though it has been concurrently found ... intended to express an
intention to separate and put an end to a coparcenary which,
according to that assertion, in fact did not exist
permissible for the defendants to put an end to the coparcenary by separation, and that the plaintiff by reason of his adoption was entitled ... reason of the partition the original coparcenary came to an end, but new coparcenaries were created between the two dividing branches, one branch being represented
coparcenary was in existence, and if it was made at a time when by death or by partition the coparcenary had come to an end ... place by virtue of any of these two notices, the coparcenary came to an end, and Shankargouda's adoption having taken place thereafter
coparcenary property
amongst Sant Ram and Gian Chand and the plaintiff would
be deemed to be entitled for his share in the joint coparcenary
property ... Sant Ram because after the death of Sant
Ram, the coparcenary ended. The learned Appellate Court
further held that the plaintiff had claimed only
included in that partition clearly
because it was not part of the coparcenary, rather it was the exclusive self acquired
property of Mathura Prasad Bhagat ... executed by all of them, whereafter the said
coparcenary ended and all the coparceners got separated with their respective
shares in those properties. The share
hands of defendant No.3 but the coparcenary had come to an
end as the plaintiffs were residing separately from defendant No.3.
The property ... could be presumed that joint Hindu family
or coparcenary had come to an end as the plaintiffs were
residing separately ?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgments
legislatures' intention, in the year 1956, was to put an end to coparcenary by saying that the son born after 1956 will not become
disrupted after the expression of intention to separate and the coparcenary comes to an end. Therefore, sub-clause (ii) of section ... disrupted after the expression of intention to separate and the coparcenary comes to an end. Therefore sub-clause (ii) of section
