PARTITION HINDU LAW

HINDU LAW

CHAPTER-8

• PARTITION 

(i) Partition 

(ii) Modes of effecting partition 

(iii) Re-opening of partition 

(iv) Reunion (Blending)

PARTITION

(i) Partition: 

Partition according to Lord Westbury in APPOVIER’S Case means division of title and division of property. Title means the status of jointness. The essence is the defining of the shares of the coparceners in the joint family; there is numerical division of the property However, actual division of property by metes and bounds is not necessary. According to Mitakshara “Partition is the adjustment of specific portions of diverse rights over the aggregate commonwealth” It is the fixation of the fluctuating interests of a coparcener into a specific-share in the joint family property. 

Change of status: 

After the shares are so defined they may divide by metes and bounds or live together and enjoy the property. There is a change in the status. Joint status comes to an end on partition. But, this will not affect their mutual love and affection. This is the essence of partition After partition, the parties hold the property, not jointly, but as tenants-m-common, if they live together. Of course, they may live separately by dividing by metes and bounds, if they so decide. Position under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 : Sn. 6 of the Act provides that the interest of the Mithakshara coparcener in the undivided coparcenary property, devolves by survivorship and according to the Act. However,, explanation 1 to Sn.6 provides for a notional partition. The objective is to give effect to such a partition when the deceased has left female heirs etc Hence his interest is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before death, (irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not). This deemed share may be the subject matter for the Will or Succession according to the Act. 

Eg.: (1) X has left sons A and B and ancestral property Rs.16,000/-. A has three sons and a daughter. A dies. Under the deemed partition the daughter’s share can be calculated. A and B get % each (Rs.8,000/- each). A has 3 sons and 1 daughter. Hence in the first round A with 3 sons i.e., 4 persons take 1A of l/z (i.e. Rs.2,000/- each). Now, in the second round all the three sons + One daughter take from As share of Rs.2000/-. Hence, the daughter gets Rs.500/- (1/16th of share). 

Eg.: (2) A and B are coparceners with ancestral property worth Rs.60,000/- A dies leaving a widow W, sons St and S2 and a daughter. Under notionel partition, A gets 1/2 ie. Rs. 30,000. A and his two sons as coparceners share equally ie, Rs. 10,000 each. Hence the deemed share of A is Rs. 10,000. This is to be given to all equality W D S , S2 i.e., Rs.2,500/- each. 

(ii) Modes of effecting partition: 

The leading cases are :

1. Rukma Bai v. Laxminarayan, 1960. 
2. Girija Mandini v. Vijendro Narain, 1967. 
3. Puttarangamma v. Ranganna, 1968.
4. Hanumanthappa v. Nagappa, 1972. 
5. Laxmichand v. Ishroo Devi, 1977. 

The Supreme Court has in Rukma Bai v. Laxminarayan (1960), elaborately discussed the law relating to partition. According to it, there is the presumption of Hindu law that family is joint. There can be a division of status among the coparceners by defining the shares. 

Though not essential, there may be a division by metes and bounds. 

Modes : 

(i) By notice : Means registered notice by a coparcener served on the Kartha or on all other coparceners. There must be an irrevocable intention expressed in unequivocal terms for separation of the status. Notice is not condition precedent. A declaration in a proceeding showing intention is enough. 

Coparcener sent a telegram ‘to partition’ on 4.8.67. He wrote a will and died on 6.8.67. Held testator died with the divided interest and therefore the will was valid Raghavamma Vs..Kenchamma. (Sn.6 and Explanation 1 explained by the Court). 

(ii) By Suit: Partition may be effected by filing a suit. Minor, insane person may sue through his next friend or guardian. But the court must be satisfied that the partition would be for minor’s or insane person’s benefit. 

Case : Peddasubbaiah Vs. Akkamma. Minor’s right at a partition are precisely those of a minor. With this decision the Supreme Court set at rest the controversy between various High Courts. 

iii) By Agreement: The Agreement may be oral or in writing. Intention to separate must have been expressed. There must be an agreement among the coparceners. Registration is optional. 

iv) By Renunciation : Instead of seeking a partition, a coparcener may renounce the interest in the coparcenery. That member gets outside but the coparcenery may continue without him. He is severed of his status. 

v) By reference to arbitration: A reference to arbitration amounts to severance of status (Kabadi Vs. Kabadi SC. 1962). 

vi) Other modes : 

a) Conversion 

b) Contracting a civil marriage (Special Marriage Act). 

c) Partition by operation of law as provided in S.6. (Notional partition). 

(iii) Re-opening of partition : 

Manu said ‘Once is a partition made’. However, reopening has been recognised under certain circumstances: 

i) On the ground of fraud, mistake or subsequent recovery of 

property. 

ii) On the ground that it is prejudicial to minor. In Ratnam v. Kuppuswami (1976) the Supreme court has laid down principles. 

iii) On the ground of ‘En vetre sa mere’ 

iv) Son begotten after partition, if the father has not reserved or taken a share. 

(iv) Reunion (Blending): 

He who ‘being once separated but dwells again through affection with his father, brother or his paternal uncle is termed reunited with him’. The reunion is restricted with these persons, only. (Ramanarayana Chowdri Vs. Panikkar) Reunion is effected by oral: agreement or subsequent conduct. This restores the undivided status. Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Revathi Devi SC. 1962. Puttarangamma Vs. Ranganna 1968. Reunion is a fact and is to be proved the court said. Reunion is Samsrita in Sanskrit. There is a junction of estate with intention to re-unite by the coparceners. 

How made : It may be made without any writing, but if it is in writing it must be registered. 

Effect : Status quo ante is the effect. It is called a re-united family. As this status is achieved by an agreement, the effect is not stated by commentators or by any court decision. Hence, the presumption is that the original status revives and the property devolves by survivorship. 

Even separate property becomes Hindu undivided property when it is thrown in to the hotchpot with intention to abandon all rights over it (malleshappa v. mallappa).