The coparcener has no power of gift over his interest and has a power of alienating or value only in certain sub-schools of the Mitakshara Bombay, Madras and Madhya Pradesh. However, it is open to him to renounce his interest entirely in favour of all the other coparceners.
In Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkata Narasimha Raju, ILR 1937 Mad. 1 (PC), one of the sons left the family renouncing his interest infavour of all the other coparceners. Sir Shadi Lai pointed out that the effect of this is to reduce the number of coparceners and not to put an end to the joint family.
The joint family continues with a reduced number of coparceners, i.e. without the renouncing coparcener. The renouncing coparcener’s after-born son cannot claim a share. Sarathambal v. Seeralan, AIR 1981 Mad. 59.
Image Source: i.ytimg.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A coparcener may not make a gift of his share without the consent of the other coparceners. He may however, renounce his share in favour of the other coparceners. In the latter case no question of consent of coparceners arises.
In Venkata Subbamma v. Rattamma, AIR 1987 SC 1775, A and В were brothers and members of a coparcenary. A made gift to В and died. Later В died leaving his (B’s) sons. A’s wife sued for partition ignoring the gift deed since a coparcener cannot make a gift.
The Supreme Court held that the gift deed in this case was not void because it is to be treated as a relinquishment or surrender of A’s interest in favour of his coparcener В as well as the other coparceners (namely, sons of B). The alternative claim of A’s widow for maintenance was upheld.