Hindu Law — Joint family property inherited by brothers from their father — Not a coparcenary Hindu joint property.

29 Hindu Law — Joint family property inherited by brothers from their father — Not a coparcenary Hindu joint property.

[Hardial Singh v. Nahar Singh, (Deceased through LR’s & Ors.) AIR 2010 (NOC) 1087 (P&H)]

The plaintiff (present respondent) brother of Inder Singh claimed that the disputed suit land to be joint Hindu coparcenary property of the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant was the Karta of joint Hindu family. Suit land was inherited by the plaintiff and the defendant from their father Pali alias Nika Singh who had inherited it from his father.

It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was not competent to transfer the suit land without legal necessity. Therefore, the transfer was said to be against the law. The Trial Court held that suit property was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. The Appellate Court further held that the half share of the property inherited by the plaintiff’s father Shri Pali was ancestral.

The Court held that the property, even if joint between the plaintiff and the defendant, could only be treated to be the joint property and not Hindu joint coparcenary property.

The Court further observed that a father cannot change the character of the joint family property into absolute property of his son by merely marking a will and bequeathing it or part of it to the son as if it was the self-acquired property of the father. In the hands of the son, the property will be ancestral property and the natural or adopted son of that son will take interest in it and be entitled to it by survivorship, as joint family property. However, an affectionate gift of his self-acquired property by a father is not ipso facto ancestral property in the hands of the son.

Property inherited by a Hindu male from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father, is ancestral as regards his male issue, even though it was inherited by him after the death of a life-tenant. Thus, if a Hindu settles the income of his property on his wife for her life, and the property after her death passes to his son as his heir, it is ancestral property in the hands of the son as regards the male issue of such son.

Thus, when the property is held by brothers, it could be said to be only joint property in their hands, but not a coparcenary Hindu joint property in which the plaintiff could claim interest by birth qua the share of the defendant.