Hindu law — Gift of undivided share by coparcener — Held to be void.

The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 27-1-1989 executed by Ambika Singh in favour of the defendants was an illegal document and not binding upon the plaintiffs. One Bharosa Singh had executed a gift of deed in favour of Rashari Singh who was the predecessor of the plaintiffs. As the said gift of deed of the year 1919 was exclusively in the name of Rashari Singh, the plaintiffs asserted that Ramdhari Singh and his son Ambika Singh did not acquire any right, title and interest in the property covered by the said gift deed. The plaintiffs also stated that Ambika Singh had filed title suit No. 10 of 1989 for partition of the joint family property, including the properties covered by the gift of deed of 1919, and simultaneously he had executed a gift deed dated 27-1-1989 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 7, which is a void document as a coparcener in his status as such he could not have executed or alienated the joint family property by way of gift. However, the defendants have contended that there was separation and Ambika Singh had separated from the joint family in the year 1982-83 and as such he was fully competent to execute the gift deed in question.

The Trial Court after considering the evidence had come to the finding that the gift deed dated 27-1-1989 by Ambika Singh was a valid and legal document. However, in appeal by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court and came to hold that the gift deed of Ambika Singh, who was a coparcener, was not a valid document with regard to coparcenary property.

On further appeal the Court observed that a mere assertion of separation is not sufficient to entitle a coparcener to alienate the coparcenary property by gift. In the present case this aspect is further fortified by the admitted fact of filing of title suit No. 10 of 1989 for partition by Ambika Singh accepting unity of title and jointness of possession over the suit land between parties to the suit in which the defendant/respondents of the present appeal were defendants and the property subject-matter of the gift deed had also been included in the suit property. The said suit was abandoned as per the submission of the counsel for the appellants, after the death of Ambika Singh. There is no evidence on record to establish the partition in the joint family of the appellant and the respondents. The Apex Court in (T. Venkat Subbamma v. T. Rattamma) AIR 1987 SC 1775 after taking notice of the authoritative texts on Hindu law and different decisions on the issue has affirmed the view and held:

“There is a long catena of decision holding that a gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenery property is void.”

For the reasons it was held that Ambika Singh had no right to gift the joint family property and as such has rightly reversed the decree of the Trial Court.