Joint Hindu Family :-
A Hindu Joint family consists of the common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants upto any generation together with the wife or wives (or widows) and unmarried daughters of the common ancestor and of the lineal male descendants. The existence of the common ancestor is necessary for bringing a joint family into existence, for its continuance common ancestor is not a necessity.
According to Sir Dinshah Mulla, “A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A daughter ceases to be a member of her father’s family on mariage, and becomes a member of her husband’s family.
A joint and undivided family is the normal condition of Hindu society. An undivided Hindu family is ordinarily joint not only in estate, but also in food and worship The existence of joint estate is not an essential requisite to constitute a joint family and a family, which does not own any property, may nevertheless be joint. Where there is joint estate, and the members of the family become separate in estate, the family ceases to be joint. Mere severance in food and worship does not operate as a separation.
The property of a joint family does not cease to be joint family property belonging to any such family merely because the family is represented by a single male member who possesses rights which an absolute owner of a property may possess. It may even consist of two females members. There must be at least two members to constitute Joint Hindu family. A single male or female cannot make a Hindu joint family even if the assets are purely ancestral.
In Narenderanath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, the Supreme Court held that the expression “Hindu undivided family’ in the wealth Tax Act used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is understood in the personal law of Hindus and a joint family may consist of a single male member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme of the Wealth Tax Act to suggest that a Hindu undivided family as assessable unit must consist of a least two male members.
In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan there was a joint family consisting of a father and his wife and a son and his wife, the son being the present assessee. On the death of father the Question raised is whether the assessee is to be assessed as an individual or as a member of the joint Hindu family, It was held that the son’s right over the property is not absolute because two females in the family has right of maintenance in the property, therefore the income of a Hindu undivided family. the income of the assessee should be taxed as the income of a Hindu undivided family.
In Anant v. Shankar it was held that on the death of a sole surviving coparcener, a Hindu Joint Family is not finally terminated so long as it is possible in nature of law to add a male member to it. Thus there can also be a joint family where there are widows only.
Coparcenary :-
A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body that the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. These are the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being in other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent.
Ancestral property is a species of coparcenary property. As stated above if a Hindu inherits property from his father, it becomes ancestral in his hands as regards his son. In such a case, it is said that the son becomes a coparcenar with the father as regards the the property so inherited, and the coparcenary consists of the father and the son. However, this does not mean that coparcenary can consist only of the father and his sons. It is not only the sons but also the grandsons and great grandsons who acquire an interest by birth in the coparcenary property Coparcenary begins with a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees counting from and inclusive of such ancestor. The Mitakshara concept of coparcenary is based on the notion of son’s birth right in the joint family property.
CoparcenaryThough every coparcenary must have a common ancestor to start with, it is not to be supposed that every extant coparcenary is limited to four degrees from the common ancestor. When a member of a joint family is removed more than four degrees from the last holder, he cannot demand a partition, and therefore he is not a coparcenar. On the death, however, of the last holder, he would become a member of the coparcenary, if he was fifth in descent from him and would be entitled to a share on partition, unless his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all predeceased the last holder. Whenever a break of more than three degrees occurs between any holder of property and the person who claims to enter the coparcenary after his death the line ceases in that direction and the survivorship is confined to those collaterals and descendants who are within the limit of four degrees.
In Ceylon- Attorney-General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar case a father and his son constituted a joint family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The father and the son were domiciled in India and had trading and other interests in India. The undivided son died and father became the sole surviving coparcener in a Hindu Undivided family to which a number of female members belonged. In this the court said that the widows in the family including the widow of the predeceased son had the power to introduce coparceners in the family by adoption and that power was exercised after the death of son.
In Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore a family consisting of father, his wife, his two unmarried daughters and his adopted son. After the death of father question arises whether the sole male surviving coparcener of the Hindu joint family, his widowed mother and sisters constitute a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of the Income tax Act in this case it was held by the court property of a joint family does not cease to belong to the the family family merely merely because the family is represented by a single coparcener who possesses rights which an owner of any property may possess. The property which yielded the income originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family.
In Moro Vishvanath v. Ganesh Vithal plaintiffs and defendants are descendants of one Udhav. The defendants are all fourth in descent from him. The plaintiffs, however are some fifth, and others sixth in descent from him. The question, however, whether, assuming them to be undivided, the plaintiffs are entitled to sue at all for a partition according to Hindu Law, is one of considerable importance and difficulty. I was urged that Plaintiffs cannot claim from the he defendants any partition of property descended from that common ancestor. It was held that upon a consideration of the authorities cited, it seems to me that it would be difficult to uphold the appellants contention that a partition could not, in any case be demanded by descendants of a common ancestor, more than four degrees removed, of property originally descended from him.
Suppose a coparcenary consisted originally of A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H, with A as the common ancestor.Suppose A dies first, then B tren C, then, and then E, and that G has then a son I, and H has a son J and ]has a son K. On E’s death the coparcenary will consist of F,G,H,I,J and K. Suppose that G,H and J die one after another, and the only survivors of the joint family are F,I and K. Are I and K coparceners with F? Yes, though I is fifth in descent from A, and K is sixth in descent from A. The reason is that either of them can demand a partition of the family property from Here the coparcenary consists of three Collaterals, namely, F,I and K.
The essence of a coparcenary under Mitakshara law is unity of ownership. The ownership of the coparcenary property is in the whole body of coparceners. According to the true notion of an undivided family governed by Mitakshara law, no individual member of that family, whilst it remains undivided, can predicate, of the joint and undivided property, that he, that particular member, has a definite share. His interest is a fluctuating interest, capable of being enlarged by deaths in the family, and liable to be diminished by births in family. It is only on partition that he becomes entitled to a definite share. The most appropriate term to describe the interest of a coparcener in coparcenary property is ‘undivided coparcenary interest’. If a Mitakshara coparcener dies immediately on his death his interest devolves on the surviving coparceners.
The Supreme Court has summarised the position and observed that the coparcenary property is held in collective ownership by all the coparceners in a quasi-corporate capacity. The incidents of coparcenary are:
1. The lineal male descendants of a person upto the third generation, acquire on birth ownership in the ancestral properties of such person;
2. such descendants can at any time work out their rights by asking for partition;
3. till partition each member has got ownership extending over the entire property conjointly enjoyment of the properties is common;
4. as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the properties is common;
5. no alienation of the property is possible unless it is for necessity, without the concurrence of the coparceners and
6. the interest of a deceased member passes on his death to the surviving coparceners.
Every coparcener and every other member of the joint family has a right of maintenance out of the joint family property. The right of maintenance subsists through the life of the member so long as family remains joint. No female can be a coparcener under Mitakshara law.even wife though she is entitled to maintenance.
Difference between Joint Hindu Family and Coparcener :-
1. In order to constitute a Joint Hindu family the existence of any kind of property is whereas in Coparcenary there exists a ancestral property. not required
2 .Joint Hindu family consist of male and female members of a family whereas in Coparcenary no female can be a coparcener.
3. Coparcenars are members of the Joint Hindu Family whereas all the members of Joint Hindu family are not Coparcenars.
4. Dayabhaga School on Coparcenar and Joint Hindu Family: -According to the Dayabhaga Naw, the sons do not acquire any interest by birth in ancestral property. Their rights arise for the first time on the father’s death. On the death they take such of the property as if left by him, whether separate or ancestral, as heirs and not by survivorship. Since the sons do not take any interest in ancestral property in their father’s lifetime, there can be no coparcenary in the strict sense of the word between a father and sons according to the Dayabhaga law. The father can dispose of ancestral property, whether movable or immovable by sale, gift, will or otherwise in the same way as he can dispose of his separate property. Since sons do not acquire any interest by birth in ancestral property, they cannot demand a partition of such property from the father. A coparcenary under the Dayabhaga law could thus consist of males as well as females. Every coparcenar takes a defined share in the property, and he is owner of that share. It does not fluctuate with birth and death in family.