https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37230 Property that had ceased to be coparcenary property on partition, and later devolved on the death of the owner under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was governed by section 8 rather than section 6 because the deceased had no coparcener in existence and the property was no longer coparcenary in his hands. The heirs took the estate absolutely and simultaneously as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants. Any relinquishment by female heirs only enlarged the shares of the sons as absolute owners. Such property did not acquire the character of ancestral property in the sons' hands, so their own sons did not obtain a coparcenary interest during the fathers' lifetime. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:38:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37230 Property that had ceased to be coparcenary property on partition, and later devolved on the death of the owner under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was governed by section 8 rather than section 6 because the deceased had no coparcener in existence and the property was no longer coparcenary in his hands. The heirs took the estate absolutely and simultaneously as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants. Any relinquishment by female heirs only enlarged the shares of the sons as absolute owners. Such property did not acquire the character of ancestral property in the sons' hands, so their own sons did not obtain a coparcenary interest during the fathers' lifetime. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37230