In a recent judgement, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in cases involving ancestral property, each coparcener or co-sharer (like sons and daughters) holds an independent and vested interest in that property. So, if a father signed a relinquishment deed favouring his son, it would only apply to the extent of the father’s own undivided share and would not affect the rights of the other co-sharers, such as the daughters.
For those unfamiliar, a relinquishment deed is signed when someone wants to give away/surrender (relinquish) their rights to something.
This ruling arose from a situation where a father allegedly signed a relinquishment deed to transfer ancestral property to his son from his deceased first wife, effectively leaving out his daughters from his second marriage. The high court ultimately ruled that this is not permissible and the daughters are entitled to their fair share of the ancestral property.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasized that legally, a person cannot relinquish, alienate, or surrender rights that belong to another co-owner; they can only manage the share that is rightfully theirs. Consequently, the alleged relinquishment deed, even if proved, could not defeat the daughters’ entitlement to seek partition and claim their respective shares in the ancestral property.
Essence of a coparcenary under Mitakshara Hindu law is unity of ownership, community of interest and unity of possession
Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET Wealth Online that under Mitakshara Hindu law, a coparcenary is a narrower body within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) where members acquire an interest in the property by birth. Every coparcener has a common and undivided interest in the property, and no individual member owns a specific demarcated portion until partition takes place.
Community of interest means that all coparceners have a shared ownership interest in the property. Sharma says that unity of possession means that every coparcener is deemed to be in joint possession of the entire property, even if one member is managing or occupying it.
Example 1:
A grandfather, father, son and daughter jointly own ancestral agricultural land. No one can claim a specific acre as exclusively theirs until partition. All have a collective interest in the whole property. This is a classic coparcenary.
Example 2:
If a father buys a property entirely from his own earnings and holds it exclusively, the son and daughter do not automatically acquire any birthright in that property. There is no community of interest or unity of possession. Therefore, a self-acquired property is not a coparcenary property.
Sharma says: “The concept of coparcenary is not based merely on blood relationships. It is based on the legal character of the property. A family may be related by blood, but unless the property itself possesses a coparcenary character, rights by birth do not arise.”
Under Mitakshara Hindu law, a person has full power over his self-acquired property
Sharma says that the principle is that a person enjoys complete ownership rights over his selfacquired property. He is free to sell, gift, transfer, or bequeath it through a will to anyone he chooses. The recipient does not automatically hold that property as ancestral property merely because it came from a parent.
Moreover, the Supreme Court in its many judgments over the years has consistently held that the nature of the property depends on its source and the intention of the person transferring it.
Sharma says: “If a father gifts his self-acquired property to a son for the son’s exclusive benefit, the property generally remains on the son’s separate property. The son’s children do not automatically acquire rights in it by birth.”
Example:
A father buys a house from his own earnings and later gifts it to his son. The son becomes the owner. The grandson cannot automatically claim a birthright in that house simply because it passed from grandfather to father.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s recent judgment about which we referenced in the beginning also reiterates that self-acquired property carries with it the owner’s freedom of disposition.
Sharma says: “The legal character of the property does not change merely because it moves from one generation to the next.”
aniltikotekar4sme.com 