The Joint family members property would not cease being joint family members property in order to passes to the hands of any sole living through coparcener. If a son is born to the singular surviving coparcener, the explained properties end up being the joint family properties in the hands in addition to the hands of his son. The only difference between the right of a manager of a joint Indio family above the joint friends and family properties high are two or more coparceners as well as the right of your sole surviving coparceners in regards to the joint family properties is that while the former can alienate the joint family properties just for legal requirement or for family benefit, the latter is eligible for dispose of the coparcenary real estate as if it were his separate real estate as long as this individual remains a sole making it through coparcener and he may sell off or mortgage loan the coparcenary property despite the fact that there is no legal necessity or perhaps family advantage or might even make a gift of the coparcenary real estate.
If a son is definitely subsequently given birth to to or adopted by the sole surviving coparcener or a new coparcener is inducted into the family on an re-homing made by a widow of any deceased coparcener an hysteria made by the only surviving coparcener before the birth of a new coparcener or the inauguration ? introduction of a coparcener by usage into the relatives whether using sale, mortgage loan or gift would however stand, pertaining to the coparcener who is born or used after the indifference cannot object to alienations made prior to he was begotten or implemented.
Inside the instant circumstance the joint family real estate which hailed from the joint family comprising Dharma-the appellant and his brother Miragu extended to retain the smoothness of joint family houses in the hands of Dharmathe appellant as Champabai, the widow of Miragu would still be alive and continued to relish the right of maintenance out of your said joint family real estate. Pandurang-the initial respondent upon adoption started to be the implemented son of Miragu and became a coparcener with Dharma-the appellant inside the joint family properties. The moment once this individual became a member of the coparcenary which will owned the joint family properties he was entitled to company a fit for partition and independent possession of his one-half reveal in the joint family properties, of course , except those which was alienated in favour of third parties before the adoption simply by Dharma-the appellant.
Offer (c) to proviso of section 12 of the Act would not be attracted in the instant circumstance since there was clearly no “vesting” of joint family real estate in Dharma-the appellant which took place for the death of Miragu without “divesting” of property happened when Pandurang-the first surveys takers was implemented.
The Joint friends and family properties continued to remain inside the hands of Dharma-the appellant as joint family properties and that in the adoption Pandurang-the 1st respondent became a member of the coparcenary eligible for claim one-half share in them other than those items which had been sold by Dharma-the appellant
