Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ahamad Khan & Ors. v. Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey & Ors. has held that the person’s share can be alienated but not the shares belonging to Hindu Joint Family Property.

What was the Background of Ahamad Khan & Ors. v. Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey & Ors. the Case?

• In this case, the respondent filed the suit before the Civil Judge Junior Division for declaration of title, partition, permanent injunction and declaration of Will void and invalid.
• The respondents argued that the disputed land is the part of Hindu Undivided family (HUF) as the suit land was ancestral property and all the legal heirs are entitled for equal share in the property.
• It was also argued that the sales executed by the plaintiff were invalid as the property is of HUF.
• The respondents were restricting the construction by the petitioners on the disputed land.
• The final purchaser is the petitioner in the present suit.
• The petitioners contented that the suit property is self-acquired property of the seller, and the sale executed by them was valid.
• It was also contended that he cannot be restrained from construction on his own property.
• The Civil Judge Junior Division, after proper findings, held that if the property was Joint Family Property, then no coparcener could alienate a specific piece of land without a proper partition.
• The decision was appealed before the District Judge who confirmed the order of the Civil Judge Junior Division.
• The appellant in the present petition approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that in a coparcenary property the shares of the person in the property can be alienated but not the piece of the property which belongs to Hindu Joint Family Property.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court also put emphasis upon Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
  • It was noted that during the pendency of the case no property in dispute can be transferred, which may affect the rights of the parties in the suit.
  • The court also concluded that the doctrine of lis pendens ensures that the property in dispute remains in the court's control and transfer during the pendency of the suit will not affect the court ruling.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that the lower courts were correct in restraining the petitioners from raising construction on the disputed land.
• The court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts, as they aligned with the legal principles governing Joint Hindu Family Property and the transfer of property during litigation.

What are the Legal Provisions in Relation to Coparcenary Rights?

• Coparcener
  • When a child acquires right in the ancestral property by birth in the Hindu Undivided family as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA)
  • All the common descendants of the Karta (the head of the Hindu family) up to 4^th generation.
  • The rights of the coparceners hence change with the birth and death of the family members.
  • The Mitakshara School of law recognizes coparcenary rights based on the proximity of connections in the family and only the male members were entitled for the shares in the ancestral property.
  • The Dayabhaga School has more widened approach where the ancestral property can also be passed to female members of the family and if the coparcener dies without children, then the property may also be passed to his widow.
• Coparcenary Property or Hindu Joint Family Property
  • A Hindu joint family property is the property jointly owned by the members of the HUF.
  • As per the HSA, the coparcenary property is the ancestral property shared by all the coparceners in the Joint property of a family.
  • If the coparcener decides to claim partition, the joint status of the family ends.
  • Following individuals born in a joint family can be a coparcener-
    • Male members born in a joint family
    • Sons, grandsons and great-grandsons
    • Unmarried daughters
    • All members of the family descended from a common ancestor
    • Wives of male members
    • Married daughters (can be a coparcener but not a member of HUF)
• Restrictions on Coparceners
  • No one other than the Karta has the power to alienate joint family property. This is also done only when there is a legal necessity, or for the benefit of the estate, or there is an indispensable duty that needs to be taken care of.
  • If a coparcener misuses the coparcenary property, the other coparceners can restrain him for any further use or have legal rights over the property.