The right to claim partition is a significant basic feature of the coparcenary, and a coparcener is one who can claim partition. The daughter has now become entitled to claim partition of coparcenary w.e.f. 9.9.2005, which is a vital change brought about by the statute. A coparcener enjoys the right to seek severance of status. Under section 6(1) and 6(2), the rights of a daughter are pari passu with a son. In the eventuality of a partition, apart from sons and daughters, the wife of the coparcener is also entitled to an equal share. The right of the wife of a coparcener to claim her right in property is in no way taken away.
We deem it appropriate to refer to the decision in Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 46 laying down that when an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. After taking a definite share in the property, a coparcener becomes the owner of that share, and, as such, he can alienate the same by sale or mortgage in the same manner as he can dispose of his separate property. It was observed:
“22. For the purpose of assigning one’s interest in the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. When an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. The parties in such an event would not possess the property as “joint tenants” but as “tenants-in-common”. The decision of this Court in SBI, (1969) 2 SCC 33, therefore, is not applicable to the present case.
23. Where a coparcener takes definite share in the property, he is owner of that share and as such he can alienate the same by sale or mortgage in the same manner as he can dispose of his separate property.”
It is settled proposition of law that without partition, only undivided share can be sold but not specific property, nor joint possession can be disrupted by such alienation. Whether the consent of other coparcener is required for sale or not, depends upon by which School of Mitakshara law, parties are governed, to say, in Benares School, there is a prohibition on the sale of property without the consent of other coparceners.
Court in the abovesaid decision made general observation but was not concerned with the aspect when the partition was completed, the effect of intervening events and effect of statutory provisions as to partition, as such, it cannot be said to be an authority as to provisions of section 6 as substituted and as to enlargement of the right by operation of law achieved thereunder. Shares of coparceners can undergo a change in coparcenary by birth and death unless and until the final division is made. The body of coparcenary is increased by the operation of law as daughters have been declared as a coparcener, full effect is required to be given to the same. The above decision cannot be said to be an authority for the question involved in the present matters.
In Man Singh (D) by LRs. v. Ram Kala (D) by LRs., AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1542, the question of devolution of interest in coparcenary property arose on the death of male Hindu leaving behind wife, son and three daughters, and determination of their shares. It was observed that until the disruption of joint family status occurs, the definite share cannot be claimed with certainty, and share cannot be predicated in joint and undivided property. The question of disruption of joint family status by a definite and unequivocal declaration of intention to separate himself from the family was also considered. The question in the present case is when the partition has not taken place whether the statutory fiction contained in the proviso to section 6 with respect to the determination of shares of a deceased coparcener and its devolution thereunder would disrupt coparcenary. The answer is in the negative.
In Man Singh (supra), it was observed that the wife has a right to claim an equal share in the husband’s property as that of a son, and she can enjoy the share separately even from her husband thus:
“12. . Till disruption of joint family status takes place, neither coparcener nor the other heirs entitled to share in the joint family property can claim with certainty the exact share in that property. In the case of Appovier Alias Seetaramier v. Rama Subba Aiyan & Ors., (1866) 11 MIA 75, Lord Westbury speaking for the Judicial Committee (Privy Council) observed, ‘According to the true notion of an undivided family in Hindoo 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 certain definite share.’
15. In Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla, Vol. I (17th Edition) as regards the right of wife, it is stated that a wife cannot herself demand a partition, but if a partition does take place between her husband and his sons, she is entitled (except in Southern India) to receive a share equal to that of a son and to hold and enjoy that share separately even from her husband (Article 315 at Page 506).”