ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am feeling highly elated work on the topic Minor coparcener a critical study under the guidance of my Family Law teacher. I am very grateful to him for his exemplary guidance. I would like to enlighten my readers regarding this topic and I hope I have tried my best to pave the way for bringing more luminosity to this topic.
I also to thank all of my friends, without whose cooperation this project was not possible. Apart from all these, I want to give special thanks to the librarian of my university who made every relevant materials regarding to my topic available to me at the time of my busy research work and gave me assistance. And at last I am very much obliged to the God who provided me the potential for the rigorous research work.
At finally yet importantly I would like to thank my parents for the financial support.
Thanking You
Research Methodology
Aims and objective
The aim of the research paper is to firstly understand the concept of coparcenary under mitakshara law. The researcher has then tried to highlight some of the general principles of coparcenary, following which the aim has been to study and discuss the status of a minor coparcener with regard to joint family property. Present paper attempts to sketch the various circumstances under which a minor coparcener can have a right of coparcenary property and under which circumstances his right and liabilities are possible.
Scope and limitation
The ambit of topic is not easily coverable in an exercise of its nature. A research paper like this one, constrained by time, availability of comparative materials, and old case law, can not fully deal with the whole Hindu law. The paper is therefore limited to the few preliminary issues relating to minor coparcener.
Research questions
The research questions which have been dealt in this paper are ;
· Whether a minor can be a coparcener?
· If yes, then what are the rights and privileges of minor coparcener?
· whether minor coparcener are subjected to the same liability as that of a major coparcener?
Chapterization
the project is divided into chapters for better clarity and flow. Following the introduction is a brief chapter on our research topic. After that the researcher has covered the concept of coparcener and then minor coparcener in detail, his rights and liabilities. Finally these chapters are followed by a conclusion which summarise the project and clarifies certain points.
Methodology
The method of writing adopted is both descriptive and analytical because all the provisions are well settled.
Source of data For this paper, the researcher has relied upon secondary source of data i.e. books, Articles and internet websites.
Mode of citation A uniform mode of citation is followed through Out the paper. Books in the present paper has been cited in this manner.
Name of the author (or editor),title of the book,(place of publication; publication co., edition (if applicable) year, vol. No.(if applicable), page No..
TABLE OF CONTENT
2) WHO IS A COPARCENER…………...........……………………9
3)WHO CAN BE A COPARCENER…………...…………………10
a) competency to become a coparcener…………........…11
b) disqualification for a coparcener………………….........12
4) MEANING OF A MINOR COPARCENER………………………..……….......…13
a) rights and privileges of a minor coparcener……............................................14
b) can a minor coparcener be subject to any liabilities of a joint family…….20
5)CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................21
6)BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................22
LIST OF CASES
i) Kakumanu Peda Subbayya v Kakumanu Akkamma
ii) Ratnam Chettiar v SM Kuppuswami Chettiar
iii) Balabux v Rukhmabai
iv) Balasubramaniam Reddy v Narayana Reddiar,
v) Babu v Govinddass.
vi) Sukhrani v Harishankar.
vii) Raghvamma Versus Chenchamm
INTRODUCTION
The joint family system is an inseparable concomitant of the life of the Hindus as suggested by the statement that there is no escape for a Hindu from the joint family. A Hindu joint family comprises of the common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants upto any generation together with their wives or widows and unmarried daughters. Coparcenary is another term used under the Hindu Law and sometimes believed to be same in meaning and scope as the joint family. However the term coparcenary under the Mitakshara School is much narrow in scope and its membership is confined to male descendants upto four degrees, from a common male ancestor. All the coparceners have unity of possession and community of interest in the joint family property.
The term `Partition`, in common parlance is used to denote segregation of joint interests. But under Hindu law the concept of Partition is not confined to mere division of property. Infact it covers both segregation of title and division of joint family property. Vijananesvara has opined that the word `partition` renders the adjustment of diverse rights regarding the whole by distributing them in particular portions of the aggregate. It is thus clear that Vijnaneshwara’s definition of partition does not only cover the division of property into specific shares but it also includes the demarcation of the respective rights of the individuals who claim the heritage jointly.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the Mitakshara that for dismantling the joint status, an agreement between all the coparceners is required. The only thing that is required to materialize a severance is a clearly comprehensible, unambiguous and explicit indication of a member of a joint family to segregate himself from the joint family. The member should unequivocally express his intention to enjoy his share separately. In 1922, in the case of Syed versus Jorawar, the Privy Council observed that it is settled law that a severance of estate is effected by an unequivocal declaration on the part of one of the joint holders of his intention to hold his share separately, even though no actual division takes place. The desire to break apart may be expressed in a number of ways, either by conduct or by overt declaration. It may be put forth by serving a notice on the other coparceners and in such case the severance of status takes place from the date when the communication was sent and not when it was actually received. In a similar fashion, the institution of a suit for partition by a member of the joint family serves as an express declaration of his desire to separate and as a sequel to this there is a severance of status from the date of institution of such suit. In the case of Raghvamma Versus Chenchamma, the Supreme Court said that communication of intention to severe must be communicated to all interested parties. From this observation the question arises as to whether a minor is an interested party within the ambit of the above decision?
It is the uniqueness of Indian Law that it does not strike any difference between minor coparceners and major coparceners, in respect of their rights in the joint family property. The rights of both the major and minor coparceners stand identical to each other with no points of distinction at all. So it is clear beyond doubt that minor coparcener enjoys a right of partition. The status or position of a minor coparcener has to be evaluated from two wide perspectives. Under the Hindu Law a father is competent to effect a partition during his lifetime. Such a partition effected by the father shall be binding on his sons – both major and minor. Thus a father has the capacity and power not only to sever the joint family status between himself and his sons but also to effect partition between his sons inter se. This also implies that a father can separate his minor son along with himself from the other joint holders or he can also separate a minor son from the rest of the family including himself.
Hindu Law establishes another fact beyond any doubt that the presence of minor coparceners does not operate as an impediment against partition by adult coparceners. A partition agreement entered into by adult coparceners, shall be binding on the minor coparceners except where such agreement is unfair or prejudicial to the interests of the minor. Where a partition agreement is detrimental to the interests of the minor coparceners, in such cases the minor can set aside such agreement on attaining majority. But this also poses great hardships for the minor, as he may have to wait for a number of years before he can exercise this option. So for example an inequitable partition is effected when minor is of 7 years. He can challenge such a partition only when he crosses the age of 18. Thus he will have to put up with injustice during all these years.
A major coparcener can effect a severance or partition at his will. But the minor coparcener cannot of his own will cause himself to be separated nor can he authorize anyone on his behalf to separate him. The only option which is available to the minor is to institute a proceeding through his next friend and thereafter the Court can pass a decree after satisfying itself of the fact that the partition in issue shall be beneficial for the interests of the minor or that such partition is necessary to shield the minor from some impending peril. Experts in the field of Hindu law have pointed out that this provision loses its relevance when examined in the context of the costs and the time which have to be borne. The next friend will have to shoulder substantial expenses till the time the minors’ interest is actually partitioned off. Above all the dilatory procedures of the Indian Courts make the task of partition all the more cumbersome. It may also be noted that in certain cases the next friend so chosen to proceed on behalf of the minor may be motivated by his own vested interests rather than the benefit of the minor. In such a case colossal damage may occur to the interests of the minor. So the questions of costs, time, credibility of the next friend etc. are worth pondering over, before we can actually say that Hindu law makes no sort of distinction between major and minor coparceners in respect of their rights in the joint family estate.
WHO IS A COPARCENER
A coparcener in relation to the father is a person who can offer a funeral cake to him. This capability to offer spiritual salvation by the performance of funeral rites was with the son, son of a son and son of a son of a son and as a consequence of it they were conferred a right by birth in the property of the father. Under Hindu law, where a person possesses an interest in ancestral or coparcenary property he is not the sole owner of it and his son, son of his son and son of his son of his son acquire a right by birth in this property.[1] All such sons grandsons and great grand sons irrespective of their numbers will be coparceners with him having joint ownership in this property. Presently the concept of coparcenary is linked with the ownership in this property.
WHO CAN BE A COPARCENER
The system of coparcenary is a narrower institution within a joint family comprising only male members. This group of persons , unlike the joint family, is related to each other only by blood or through a valid adoption. No person can by marriage and no stranger can by agreement become a member of coparcenary, as it is a creation of law.[2]Under the classical law no female could be a member of coparcenary. The senior most male member is called the last holder of the property and from him a continuous chain of three generations of male members form the coparcenary. These males upto three generations from the present / last holder of the property have a right by birth in the joint hindu family property and have a right to ask for partition of the same. As far as coparcenary is concerned, father’s wife , lineal descendant’s wives and the two daughters will not be members of the coparcenary but the father his two sons, and grandsons would be members of the coparcenary and will have a right by birth in the ownership of this property.
COMPETENCY TO BECOME A COPARCENER
The lineal male descendant of a person, upto three generation is competent to become a coparcener. If there is a lineal male descendant in the fifth generation he will be the member of the joint family but will not be a coparcener as he is removed from the senior most male member by more than four generations. The rule is that so long as one is not removed from the last holder of the property by more than four generations he will be a coparcener.[3] When all the coparceners die leaving behind only one of them, the surviving coparcener is called the sole surviving coparcener.as a minimum of two male member is required to form a coparcenary, a sole surviving coparcener can not form a coparcenary all by himself. On the death of the sole surviving coparcener, the property will go to the legal heirs of the deceased subject to the maintenance of female members of the joint Hindu family.
Under Mitakshara coparcenary, women can not be coparceners.[4] A wife under Hindu law has a right of maintenance out of her husband’s property, yet she is not a coparcener with him.[5] Even a widow succeeding her deceased husband’s share in the joint family under the women’s right to property Act 1937 is not a coparcener.[6]Presently, a daughter has been introduced as a coparcener. However, a mother and all females who become members of a Hindu joint family upon their marriage to male coparceners are not coparceners themselves.
A Mitakshara coparcenary consists of only the legitimate male offsprings of the lineal male descendants. Illegitimate sons not coparceners but members of joint family, and if a partition take place between father and the sons, they can be allotted a share.[7] An insane male member of the family is not a coparcener and his rights are temporarily suspended till he recovers, but if a partition takes place he has to be allotted a share.[8] There can be a coparcenary, under Mitakshara law, with a lunatic member.
DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR A COPARCENER
Renunciation & Convertion to other Religion
A coparcener who renounces his religion and converts to some other faith ceases to be a member of the joint family and is therefore also ousted from the coparcenary. Similar is the case where he gets married to a non-Hindu under the special marriage Act 1954.[9] However in both the above cases, his rights in the coparcenary property will not be forfeited and he is entitled to take his share of the property. A Hindu man who gets married to a non-Hindu can not form a coparcenary with his son.[10]
Adoption :
A minor coparcener, if given in adoption by his competent parent, is deemed to be dead for the biological family from the date he is given in adoption to another family.[11] His interest in the coparcenary property prior to his adoption will be taken by the surviving coparceners and when he goes to the adoptive family he goes there without any property but will acquire an interest in the coparcenary property of the adoptive family with the adoptive father as his son from the date of adoption as from the date he is deemed to be in the adoptive family.
Insanity
An insane male member of the family is not a coparcener and his rights are temporarily suspended till he recovers, but if a partition takes place he has to be allotted a share.[12] There can be a coparcenary, under Mitakshara law, with a lunatic member. A coparcener gets his right in the coparcenary property by birth and there appears nothing that extinguish that right on the supervening insanity. Further, the sons of such disqualified persons are not excluded from taking a share in the coparcenary property.
MEANING OF MINOR COPARCENER
The moment a male child takes birth in the joint Hindu family, he gets the birth right in the coparcenary property. A minor coparcener is not a major coparcener until he attains the age of 18 years. It is generally presumed that money required for carrying on family business is a family necessity and that the business is carried on with the consent or acquiescence of all the members of the family. Thus, if debts are incurred by the Manager in the ordinary course of the family business, all the coparceners become liable. However, their liability is limited to the extent of their interest in the family property and not beyond that. No doubt, the adult coparceners become personally liable when they themselves are actually contracting parties along with the Manager, or if they ratify the contract entered into by the Manager, except in the case of a minor coparcener, who does not become personally liable unless the contract is ratified by him after attaining majority. A minor coparcener can claim the re-opening of the partition, if he can establish that the partition. During his minority was unjust, unfair and prejudicial.
if this partition is in relation to any business partition or any other property held in joint names & if any minor is a share holder in this transaction, then this being a contractual affair where the minor could not enter in any legal contract of his or her own but only through his or her legal/natural guardian who as such is the natural father & in his absence the natural mother & in both their absence any person who has been appointed by the court to be the legal guardian of the minor & take any decision with regard to any property or affairs on his or her behalf. In such cases the Natural or the Legal guardian takes decision for partition of the business or property on behalf of the minor as the case maybe. The courts permission will be required only in case of transaction with regard to the disposal, such as mortgage or charge or transfer by sale,gift,exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor.
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF A MINOR COPARCENER
The moment a coparcener is born, he acquires an interest in the coparcenary property which is equal to the interest of his father.[13] So the rights and privileges of a minor coparcener is same like a major coparcener but with some restrictions with regard to the partition and alienation of the coparcenary property.
The joint family system is an inseparable concomitant of the life of the Hindus as suggested by the statement that there is no escape for a Hindu from the joint family. A Hindu joint family comprises of the common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants upto any generation together with their wives or widows and unmarried daughters. Coparcenary is another term used under the Hindu Law and sometimes believed to be same in meaning and scope as the joint family. However the term coparcenary under the Mitakshara School is much narrow in scope and its membership is confined to male descendants upto four degrees, from a common male ancestor. All the coparceners have unity of possession and community of interest in the joint family property.
The term Partition , in common parlance is used to denote segregation of joint interests. But under Hindu law the concept of Partition is not confined to mere division of property. Infact it covers both segregation of title and division of joint family property. Vijananesvara has opined that the word partition renders the adjustment of diverse rights regarding the whole by distributing them in particular portions of the aggregate. It is thus clear that Vijnaneshwara?s definition of partition does not only cover the division of property into specific shares but it also includes the demarcation of the respective rights of the individuals who claim the heritage jointly.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the Mitakshara that for dismantling the joint status, an agreement between all the coparceners is required. The only thing that is required to materialize a severance is a clearly comprehensible, unambiguous and explicit indication of a member of a joint family to segregate himself from the joint family. The member should unequivocally express his intention to enjoy his share separately. In 1922, in the case of Syed versus Jorawar, the Privy Council observed that it is settled law that a severance of estate is effected by an unequivocal declaration on the part of one of the joint holders of his intention to hold his share separately, even though no actual division takes place. The desire to break apart may be expressed in a number of ways, either by conduct or by overt declaration. It may be put forth by serving a notice on the other coparceners and in such case the severance of status takes place from the date when the communication was sent and not when it was actually received. In a similar fashion, the institution of a suit for partition by a member of the joint family serves as an express declaration of his desire to separate and as a sequel to this there is a severance of status from the date of institution of such suit. In the case of Raghvamma Versus Chenchamma, the Supreme Court said that communication of intention to severe must be communicated to all interested parties. From this observation the question arises as to whether a minor is an interested party within the ambit of the above decision?
It is the uniqueness of Indian Law that it does not strike any difference between minor coparceners and major coparceners, in respect of their rights in the joint family property. The rights of both the major and minor coparceners stand identical to each other with no points of distinction at all. So it is clear beyond doubt that minor coparcener enjoys a right of partition. The status or position of a minor coparcener has to be evaluated from two wide perspectives. Under the Hindu Law a father is competent to effect a partition during his lifetime. Such a partition effected by the father shall be binding on his sons ? both major and minor. Thus a father has the capacity and power not only to sever the joint family status between himself and his sons but also to effect partition between his sons inter se. This also implies that a father can separate his minor son along with himself from the other joint holders or he can also separate a minor son from the rest of the family including himself.
Hindu Law establishes another fact beyond any doubt that the presence of minor coparceners does not operate as an impediment against partition by adult coparceners. A partition agreement entered into by adult coparceners, shall be binding on the minor coparceners except where such agreement is unfair or prejudicial to the interests of the minor. Where a partition agreement is detrimental to the interests of the minor coparceners, in such cases the minor can set aside such agreement on attaining majority. But this also poses great hardships for the minor, as he may have to wait for a number of years before he can exercise this option. So for example an inequitable partition is effected when minor is of 7 years. He can challenge such a partition only when he crosses the age of 18. Thus he will have to put up with injustice during all these years.
A major coparcener can effect a severance or partition at his will. But the minor coparcener cannot of his own will cause himself to be separated nor can he authorize anyone on his behalf to separate him. The only option which is available to the minor is to institute a proceeding through his next friend and thereafter the Court can pass a decree after satisfying itself of the fact that the partition in issue shall be beneficial for the interests of the minor or that such partition is necessary to shield the minor from some impending peril. Experts in the field of Hindu law have pointed out that this provision loses its relevance when examined in the context of the costs and the time which have to be borne. The next friend will have to shoulder substantial expenses till the time the minors? interest is actually partitioned off. Above all the dilatory procedures of the Indian Courts make the task of partition all the more cumbersome. It may also be noted that in certain cases the next friend so chosen to proceed on behalf of the minor may be motivated by his own vested interests rather than the benefit of the minor. In such a case colossal damage may occur to the interests of the minor. So the questions of costs, time, credibility of the next friend etc. are worth pondering over, before we can actually say that Hindu law makes no sort of distinction between major and minor coparceners in respect of their rights in the joint family estate.
Minority is no bar to seek partition,[14] but a minor can not seek partition directly. He can institute a suit for partition through a next friend in a court of law.[15] Here the court will take cognizance of the situation and would enforce partition only when it is satisfied that the partition would be beneficial to or promote the interests of the minor.[16]But where it comes to the conclusion on the basis of the facts before it, that the interest of the minor are being adequately taken care by the other coparceners or father, no partition will be effected.
A partition by agreement though entered into during the minority of the coparcener, is binding on the minor, unless it is unfair or prejudicial to his interests. Examples of situations where court may pass a decree for partition ,include where an adult coparcener in possession of the family property is wasting the property, or denies the minor’s rights, or declines to provide for the minor’s maintenance. However The Supreme Court pointed out in Kakumanu Peda Subbayya v Kakumanu Akkamma, that decree of court merely renders the suit by friend of the minor effective by deciding that what the next friend had done was for the benefit of the minor. In doing this the court overruled various high court cases which had held that the power to bring about a division between a minor and his coparceners rests only with the court and not with any other person. Instead the SC held that when a court decides that a suit for partition is beneficial to the minors it does not itself being about a division in status. The court is not in the position of a super guardian of a minor expressing on his behalf an intention to become divided. That intention is, in fact, expressed by some other persons, and the function which the court exercises is merely to decide whether that other has acted in the best interest of the minor in expressing on his behalf an intention to become divided.
A minor after becoming of age can reopen the partition if he can prove that the partition was not for his benefit or it was unfair with regard to him. This can best be explained with the help of the case of Ratnam Chettiar v SM Kuppuswami Chettiar. In this case two brothers made a partition and that time plaintiffs were minors. Under the partition deed both immovable and immovable property were divided with the help of family auditor of one brother.
Plaintiff here alleged that partition was secured by practicing fraud and undue influence and by suppressing large assets belonging to the family which were taken by their uncle by taking advantage of the weakness of the plaintiff’s father who was a person of weak intellect. As per trial court partition of movable properties was concerned which was done by a separate document and was severable from the partition of movable properties, was neither unjust nor unfair so as to entitle the minor to reopen the partition after a long period. The same was confirmed by the high court. the high in the present case made a slight variation in the decree issued by the trial court by setting aside the directions of trial court for the appointment of a commissioner and by quantifying the value of the disparity in the share of the plaintiffs, by itself.
The Supreme Court here, as regards immovable property rejected to reopen the partition even though the properties were not actually valued according to the market rate and a notional valuation had been given in the partition deed. Supreme Court took this view due to its policy of not interferring with concurring finding of two courts below. With regard to partition of movable property the hon’ble Supreme Court after making a detailed study also reached the same conclusion that it was an unequal partition and the silence of the father or even his acquiescence in allowing his elder brother to swallow the amount was not a prudent act and it had caused serious detriment to the interests of the minors which he had to protect, because the minors at that time were members of the Hindu undivided family.
A similar problem came up beforee the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhrani v Harishankar. Here plaintiff was minor at the time of institution of suit for partition. In the present case there were originally three brothers who carried out the Bidi manufacturing business. After the death of one of them, the same was carried out by remaining two brothers.
However in 1948 Mannulal represented to his brother that in order to avoid tax there should be nominal partition between them and upon this the joint family business was converted into a partnership. Here Mannulal’s share was 10 Ans. 8 Ps. And that of Rajaram was of 5 Ans. 4 Ps. Later Babulal and Sunderlal were also shown as partners. Even the house belonging to the family were divided where Mannulal took 2/3rd share and Rajaram took the rest. On these allegations the plaintiff filed the suit. It was argued on the behalf of defendant-appellant that the partition could not be reopened since there was no fraud or misrepresentation and since unequal shares had been voluntarily accepted, it was binding on the parties.it was also pointed out that the plaintiff and his brothers were effectively represented by their father therefore partition can not be opened merely on the ground of inequality of shares.
However the Supreme Court referring to the case of Ratnam Chettiar v SM Kuppuswami Chettiar held that even though there was no fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence, a partition could be reopened at the instance of minor coparcener despite the fact that his branch was represented by his father at the partition, if the partition was unfair or prejudicial to the interest of minor.
In the case of Balabux v Rukhmabai,[17] it was held that a reunion could take place only between the parties who were parties to the original partition, it seems that a minor can not reunite , since minor has no capacity to contract. Similarly in case of Balasubramaniam Reddy v Narayana Reddiar, it was held that reunion is product of agreement and minor is incompetent to contract therefore an agreement can not agree to reunite. However it must be remembered that as it is open to father and mother as his guardian to effect a separation on behalf of the minor coparcener, it would be equally open to the father or mother as his guardian to agree to a reunion on behalf of the minor. The Madras High Court favoured this view in Babu v Govinddass.[18]
A minor male(coparcener) may also act as a Karta through his legal guardian till he becomes a major.
The Karta,being the Head of the Joint family;act on behalf of the joint family.The position of the Karta is "Sui generis".Sui generis in the sense that his position is not that of the Manager of a Commercial Firm and his relationship with the other members is not that of the Principal and Agent or Firm and Partners.
However, the powers of Karta are not absolute or unlimited.Within the ambit of his sphere,he possesses such vast powers,which no one can possess.
. Power of Alienation:
"Alienation" means "Transfer of Property from one person to another by way of a Sale,Gift,Lease,Mortgage etc..,"Karta can alienate the joint family property with the consent of the other coparceners.Even without the consent of the other coparceners,he can alienate under the following cases:
i) For the Purpose of Legal Necessity
ii) For the benefit of the Estate and
iii) For the performance of Indispensable Religious Duties.
CAN A MINOR COPARCENER BE SUBJECT TO ANY LIABILITIES OF JOINT FAMILY
It is generally presumed that money required for carrying on family business is a family necessity and that the business is carried on with the consent or acquiescence of all the members of the family. Thus, if debts are incurred by the Manager in the ordinary course of the family business, all the coparceners become liable. However, their liability is limited to the extent of their interest in the family property and not beyond that. No doubt, the adult coparceners become personally liable when they themselves are actually contracting parties along with the Manager, or if they ratify the contract entered into by the Manager, except in the case of a minor coparcener, who does not become personally liable unless the contract is ratified by him after attaining majority.
CONCLUSION
Indian Hindu Law does not put any difference between minor coparceners and major coparceners, in respect of their rights in the joint family property and its enjoyment. The rights of both the major and minor coparceners stand identical to each other with no points of distinction at all. So it is clear beyond doubt that minor coparcener enjoys a right of partition. A major coparcener can effect a severance or partition at his will. But the minor coparcener cannot of his own will cause himself to be separated nor can he authorize anyone on his behalf to separate him. The only option which is available to the minor is to institute a proceeding through his next friend and thereafter the Court can pass a decree after satisfying itself of the fact that the partition in issue shall be beneficial for the interests of the minor or that such partition is necessary to shield the minor from some impending peril. Experts in the field of Hindu law have pointed out that this provision loses its relevance when examined in the context of the costs and the time which have to be borne. The next friend will have to shoulder substantial expenses till the time the minors? interest is actually partitioned off. Above all the dilatory procedures of the Indian Courts make the task of partition all the more cumbersome. It may also be noted that in certain cases the next friend so chosen to proceed on behalf of the minor may be motivated by his own vested interests rather than the benefit of the minor. In such a case colossal damage may occur to the interests of the minor. So the questions of costs, time, credibility of the next friend etc. are worth pondering over, before we can actually say that Hindu law makes no sort of distinction between major and minor coparceners in respect of their rights in the joint family estate.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS :
i) Paras Diwan, Family Law, 8th Edition, Allahabad Law Agency.
ii) Justice Mishra Ranganath; Mayne’s Hindu Law & Usage, 15th ed., Bharat law house, New delhi, 7th Reprint
iii) Mulla, Hindu Law, Volume 1, 7th Reprint
iv) Agarwala, R.K, Hindu Law, 22nd Edition, Central Law Agency, 8th Reprint
v)Saxena, Poonam Pradhan, Family Law Lectures, Family Law II, Second Edition, Lexis Nexis, Second Reprint 2008
WEBSITES:
i) www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1863256
iii) www.wikipedia.org
iv) in.answers.yahoo.com
[1].sunder lal v. chittar Mal (1970) ILR 29 All 1
[2] Sudarsanam v. Narasimhulu
[3] Bhagwan Das v. Reoti Devi AIR 1962 SC 287.
[4] Comm of Income Tax v. Govind RamSugar Mills AIR 1966 SC 240.
[5] Sabitri v FA Savi AIR 1933 Pat 306.
[6] Seetha Bai v Narasimha (1945) ILR Mad 568.
[7] Gur Narain Das v Gur Tahal Das AIR 1952 SC 225.
[8] Amirthammal v Vallimayil Ammal AIR 1942 Mad 693.
[9] Special Marriage Act, 1954 Section 21 A.
[10] Rosie Marie v CET AIR 1970 Mad 249.
[11] See Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, S 12
[12] AIR 1942 Mad 693.
[13] Mandly Prasad v Ramcharan Lal (1947) ILR Nag 848.
[14] Dnyaneshwar Vishnu v Anant Vasudeo (1936) 60 Bom 736.
[16] Nagappa Chettiar v Subramaniam (1946) ILR Mad 103.
[17] (1903) 30 I.A. 130.
[18] AIR 1928 Mad 1064.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Tags :Students
