The difference between self-acquired property and coparcenary property was pointed out by the Privy Council in the Shiva-Ganga case: Katama Nachiar v. Raja of Sivaganga, 9 MIA 539. The East India Company made a grant of the Zamindari in 1801. In 1829 when the Zamindar died the rival claimants were the daughter of the deceased who claimed as heir and the brother’s son who claimed by survivorship.
The Privy Council held that “The law of Succession follows the nature of the property”. If the property is coparcenary property the (son son’s son and son’s son’s son) will take by survivorship that in which they had during to the deceased’s lifetime, a common interest and a common possession”. Here the property was self-acquired property. So the rules of inheritance would apply and the daughter was accordingly held to be entitled to the property.
Secondly, self-acquired property may be bequeathed under a will. Coparcenary property could not be the subject-matter of a will for it was subject to the rule of survivorship.
Image Source: kpclgroup.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thirdly, self-acquired property is alienable without any restriction but coparcenary property is not thus freely alienable. A gift of coparcenary property, for instance, would be void.
It may be observed that what coparcenary property was at one time may become self-acquired property and vice versa. Thus what to start with is self-acquired property may be thrown into the hotchpot and by the process of blending become coparcenary property.
Suppose two brothers partition their coparcenary property. Then each holds the share allotted to him as his separate property but the moment a son is born to him the property becomes coparcenary property. The converse case of coparcenary property becoming self-acquired property is well illustrated by Ram Devi v. Gyrasi, ILR 1949 All. 160 (FB).
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A died leaving two undivided sons S1, and S2. S1 had a son S3; and S2 had a son S4. So the property was coparcenary property; subsequently S1, S2 and S4 died and S3 became the sole surviving coparcener.
In the hands of S3 the property has become separate property. S3 sold the property to the plaintiff and died. The widow of S4 claimed the property. It was held that the alienation to the plaintiff was valid as the property at the time of the alienation had become self-acquired property freely alienable in the hands of the sole surviving coparcener.