Coparcenary interest can be upheld as valid relinquishment when the transfer operates in favour of remaining coparceners.

Under Mitakshara law, a coparcener cannot ordinarily gift an undivided coparcenary interest without the consent of the other coparceners. A genuine renunciation or relinquishment in favour of the remaining coparceners as a body is, however, recognised and may be upheld where the transfer is in substance for their benefit. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 permits testamentary disposition under section 30 and changes devolution under section 6, but does not otherwise displace the rule against gift of an undivided coparcenary interest. On that construction, a transfer may be sustained as a valid relinquishment rather than an invalid gift.

---

---

Issues: Whether a coparcener's transfer of his undivided coparcenary interest in favour of another coparcener is void, or can be upheld as a valid renunciation or relinquishment.

Analysis: Under Mitakshara law, a coparcener cannot ordinarily make a gift of his undivided interest in coparcenary property without the consent of the other coparceners. However, a genuine renunciation or relinquishment of that interest in favour of the other coparceners as a body is recognised, and if the transfer is in substance for the benefit of the remaining coparceners, it may be treated as such rather than as an invalid gift. The statutory scheme of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 permits testamentary disposition under section 30 and alters devolution under section 6, but does not otherwise abrogate the rule against gift of an undivided coparcenary interest.

Conclusion: The transfer was valid when construed as a renunciation or relinquishment of the coparcener's interest in favour of the remaining coparceners, and the consent of the other coparceners was therefore immaterial.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of an undivided coparcenary interest may be sustained if, on its true construction, it operates as a genuine renunciation in favour of the remaining coparceners rather than as an impermissible gift of coparcenary property.

---