According to Brihaspati “He who being once separated dwells again, through affection with his father, brother, or paternal uncle is termed re-united”.
The Dayabhaga School of Bengal and the Dravida School have taken this text literally and permit re-union only when the parties to the re-union are father and son; brothers; paternal uncle and nephews. The Vyavahara Mayukha of Mitakshara School and Mithila School regard the enumeration of the relations in the text to be illustrative only. So in these schools re-union is permissible between all those who were parties to the original partition. Thus even cousins may re-unite.
According to the Privy Council the parties to the re-union should have been parties to the original partition also and that subject to this there may be a re-union. Ram Narain v. Mst. Pan Kuer, AIR 1935 PC 9.
Image Source: lulsya.narod.ru
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Supreme Court has pointed out in Bhagwan Dayal v. Mst. Reoti Devi, 1962 (1) SCJ 348 (Subbarao J.), that for a re-union there should be an express or implied agreement between the parties to become re-united in estate.
In that case A had become divided from his brother B. In the branch of В there were 4 sons of В who had also become divided one from the other. A, and С and D (two of the sons of B) started a trade and acquired properties. The question was whether A, С and D had become re-united in which case the property would be joint family property with right of survivorship. Otherwise it would be property owned by A and the two sons of В as tenants-in-common.
A and then С died. D claimed the property by survivorship while C’s widow claimed C’s share. The Supreme Court held that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the uncle and nephews consciously entered into an agreement to re-unite and become members of a joint Hindu family.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The burden of proof is upon the party who sets up reunion to establish affirmatively an agreement for re-union. Further, A and 2 out of the 4 members of B’s branch cannot constitute a coparcenary. So any acquisitions by them cannot be impressed with the incidents of coparcenary property.