Allgemein

Who Has No Right to Partition under Hindu Law

According to the Dayabhaga law, this implies a division of property according to the respective part of the Koparzener. That is to say, the separation of the common affiliation, e.B. the separation or isolation of the share between Coparcener according to distributions and obligations. Distribution of the property according to the respective part of the Coparceners. Thus, under Mitakshara, the essence of koparzen is the solidarity of property. The article attempts to cover the concept of division; The research methodology used in this study is “Doctrinaire” The article is an informative conceptual and theoretical interpretation and explanation by nature and has no personal thoughts and opinions. It includes an overview of the literature available in legal journals, journals, journals, libraries, research, books and the Internet. There are many ways in which partitioning was performed:- 1. According to the Dravida School, no woman is entitled to a share of the division. When all Coparceners resolve the common state, this is called partition by chord. The court does not have the power to recognize a division unless there is an amicable agreement between the parties.

In addition, a partition agreement can also be an internal agreement between family members, in which rights are compromised in order to preserve the dignity of the family and avoid unnecessary disputes. It is important to note that Coparceners may agree that they would not affect the partition until a certain event occurs, a certain period of time or even until the life of a certain Coparcener. There can be several modes through which a partition (partition modes under Hindu law) can pass, such as.B. 3. The presence of similar property that existed at the time of division is not necessary for the purposes of reunification. A division is a demonstration by which a co-principal breaks off his relations with the common family and loses his status as a coparzener and transforms himself into an individual free from the bonds of the common family. A significant result of such a partition is that the part of the Coparcener or Coparceners who are looking for a dubious, fluctuating and capricious partition up to the partition becomes specific and definitive due to the partition, and is thus attributed to individual individuals. If the son was born and conceived after the division, he is entitled to a share of his father at the time of the division as well as to his separated property excluding separated sons and does not have the right to reopen the division. But this point of view is no longer valid. In a subsequent case, the Bombay High Court, which ruled on the authority of the Supreme Court in Puttorangamma v. Rangamma, ruled that a request for separate division and ownership of ancestral common family property by one of the Koperzeners can be maintained even if their father is united with his brother and is not disposed of and does not accept such a division.

4. The father, as a karta of the family, cannot extend the limitation of debts before the division by partial payment or approval. If the co-park consists of a single father and his sons, he has the right to influence the division without the consent of the sons. It binds the sons because of the power given to the father. However, such a division must be made in good faith. The term “female partner” includes three types of women, namely (1) the wife, (2) the widowed mother, and (3) the paternal grandmother. These partners cannot demand a division, but are entitled to their share if the common family property is actually divided into divisions. If a division action brought by a copier has been withdrawn, the partner does not have the right to pursue the action or assert a claim for his share. In the case of Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in this case in paragraph 23 of the judgment decided: Accordingly, we consider that the rights under the amendment apply to the living daughters of living coparceners as on 9.9.2005, regardless of the date of birth of these girls.

The disposition or sale, including divisions, which may have taken place before 20.12.2004 in accordance with the law applicable before that date, shall remain unaffected. Any transaction in the partition that is subsequently carried out is governed by the declaration. Legislator Manu says in his text that when a division takes place, it is final and irrevocable, which means that it cannot be reopened.[21] On the other hand, in its own text, it was also written that “if after all debts and assets have been distributed according to the rule, after each property is discovered, you must divide it evenly”. [22] It was also initiated by Katyayana that property whose unequal division violates the law or property recovered after seizure or loss should be redistributed among all copalms. [23] The honourable courts have also found that if the above conditions are met, the division should be reopened. In general, a partition can be reopened if the partition was assumed to be caused by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence. [24] 3. When the property is common property with foreigners who cannot be subject to the division of the family.

A division of property can be done under Hindu law in several ways, namely by agreement, will, notice, arbitration, transformation, etc. Intention is the essence of division. Coparcener`s suggestion about his clear intentions gives him the right to receive his share, whether or not others accept a separation, and there is a separation in the family.[9] The intention must be communicated to be effective. This can be in different ways, either explicitly or through the conductor of other family members. “that no Coparcener can claim a defined share in the property, but if the Coparceners enter into an agreement according to which each member will have a certain and defined share in the future, the common status is affected and Coparcener acquires the right to separate its specific share and use it to the exclusion of the others. B. In the event of a division between a son and the sons of a son who died before death, she may be entitled to an equal share of that of her grandson. In the whole Hindu family joined, “Karta” or “Manager” occupies a very important position.

There is no office or institution in any other system in the world that can be compared to this. He is a person with limited power, but he has such power in the realm of the common family that no one enjoys it. Who is a Karta: – Karta means manager of the common family and common family property. He is the person who takes care of the daily expenses of the family, takes care of the family and protects the common property of the family. Who can be a Karta: – It is a presumption that usually the oldest male member of Karta is and Karta is always a family member, no stranger or foreigner can become a Karta. The oldest male member, as long as he is alive, can be old, frail or sick to continue as Karta. After his death, Kartaship is passed on to the next upper male member. In the presence of older male members, a junior cannot act like a karta, but if all the coparceners agree, a junior can also become a karta. Karta owes its position to the approval or approval of all Coparceners. Female Member: – In general, a female member cannot become a karta, but in exceptional circumstances, the female member can also act as a karta. The Nagpur Supreme Court has ruled that although the mother is not a copalmine, she can act as a karta in the absence of an adult male member.

In Income Tax Commissioner v. Seth Govind Ram, the Supreme Court ruled that a mother or female member cannot be a karta of a common family and therefore cannot alienate joint family property. Karta Position: – Karta is sui generis (of its own kind) the relationship between it and the members is not as a principal or agent or as a partner in a partnership company. He is the head of the family and acts on behalf of the other members. He is in a fiduciary relationship with other members, but he is not a trustee, no one can question what he has spent unless he is accused of embezzlement. .