Hindu succession and coparcenary property: inherited shares lose joint family character after devolution under intestate succession.

Under the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional partition is assumed immediately before a male Hindu's death where the proviso applies, and the deceased's share then devolves by intestate succession under Section 8. Read with Section 19, the heirs take that share as tenants in common, and Section 4 overrides inconsistent pre-existing Hindu law. The Supreme Court noted that once a coparcener's interest devolves in this manner, the property in the heirs' hands loses its joint family character. The grandson therefore had no subsisting birth right to demand partition of property that was no longer coparcenary property when the suit was filed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the death of the grandfather and the devolution of his share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the ancestral property continued to retain the character of joint family property so as to entitle the grandson to maintain a suit for partition during the lifetime of his father.

Analysis: Under the unamended scheme of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, where a male Hindu dies leaving a female Class I heir, the proviso applies and a notional partition must be assumed immediately before death for determining the deceased's share. That share then devolves by intestate succession under Section 8, and Section 19 provides that heirs take as tenants in common, not as joint tenants. Read with Section 4, the Act overrides the pre-existing Hindu law to the extent of inconsistency. The Court applied the earlier decisions on the effect of Sections 6, 8, 19 and 30 to hold that once the deceased coparcener's share devolves by succession under Section 8, the property in the hands of the heirs ceases to remain joint family property. The grandson, therefore, had no subsisting birth right or enforceable right to seek partition of property that was no longer coparcenary property when his suit was filed.

Conclusion: The grandson was not entitled to maintain the suit for partition, and the challenge to the dismissal of the suit failed.

---