Legal Reference Library

In Kali Ammal Vs. Valliyammal, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh and others, (2016), held that a person could have claimed a right by birth only in respect of ancestral property in the hands of his father and the right claimable was only per stripes – No coparcener could have ever claimed a right by birth over the entire joint family properties on per capita basis.  The Hon'ble court also explained that :- Rights of coparceners can be enlisted as follows: (1) Right by birth (2) Right by survivorship (3) Right to partition (4) Right to joint possession and enjoyment (5) Right of alienation (6) Right to make selfacquisitions (7) Right to restrain unauthorised acts (8) Right to accounts

Supreme Court, in Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh, has summarized the law governing the Mitakshara joint family property, prior to the amendment of 2005. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman was hearing an appeal arising from a suit for partition, which was dismissed both by Trial Court and the High Court, holding that the date of the birth of the plaintiff in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable. The Apex Court summarized the law regarding the joint family property governed by Mitakshara School as follows. When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide Section 6). To proposition (i), an exception is contained in Section 30 Explanation of the Act...