Separate property on partition remains outside children's birthright; Hindu Succession Act prevails over prior Mitakshara doctrine.

Property allotted to a Hindu on partition of joint family property is his separate property under the Hindu Succession Act, so his children do not acquire a birthright in it merely because it came from partition. The statutory scheme in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 30 displaces the earlier Mitakshara rule to the extent preserved by the Act. A suit for partition based on a claimed joint family character of such property was therefore not maintainable. The civil suit was also not barred by the Co-operative Societies Act, because a partition claim of this nature does not fall within the statutory dispute categories for which that Act provides a remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property allotted to a Hindu on partition of joint family property is his separate property or the joint family property of himself and his children for purposes of succession and partition. (ii) Whether the civil suit for partition was barred by the Co-operative Societies Act.

Issue (i): Whether property allotted to a Hindu on partition of joint family property is his separate property or the joint family property of himself and his children for purposes of succession and partition.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act gives overriding effect to the Act in matters covered by it, while Sections 6 and 30 preserve only limited incidents of Mitakshara law. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves under Section 8 in the order prescribed by the Schedule, and the statutory scheme displaces the pre-existing doctrine that a son automatically takes inherited property as joint family property with his own sons. A property obtained by a Hindu on partition of joint family property is therefore his separate property, capable of disposition by him, and his children do not acquire a birthright in it merely because it came to him from partition.

Conclusion: The property was the separate property of the first defendant, and the claim for partition was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil suit for partition was barred by the Co-operative Societies Act.

Analysis: The bar of jurisdiction under Section 100 applies only to matters for which provision is made in the Act, and the dispute must also fall within the categories specified in Section 69. A suit seeking partition of property on the footing that it belongs to a joint family does not fall within those statutory dispute categories, and the Act does not provide a remedy for such a claim.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by the Co-operative Societies Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree for partition was set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Property obtained by a Hindu on partition is his separate property, and in matters of intestate succession governed by the Hindu Succession Act the statutory scheme prevails over the pre-existing Mitakshara doctrine of birthright unless the Act expressly saves it.

---