On the separation of one coparcener from the others a question arises as to whether the other members are deemed to be joint or re-united or separate. The question depends upon presumption and also to a great extent upon the intention of the parties.
It is to be seen whether the non-separating members intended to remain joint and to enjoy as members of a joint family what remained of their property after such partition.
Image Source: feistyeats.files.wordpress.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
There is no need of any express agreement to this effect. The intention to remain joint may be inferred from the way in which they continue to live. However, where one brother separates from the rest, there is no presumption that the others remained joint; such an intention must be proved like any other fact. Thus, the effect of partial partition may be summarised as follows:
(a) As regards partial partition to property, where coparceners divide the joint property with the exception of a portion of it, they are, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, tenant-in-common with reference to the excepted property.
(b) But where the partition is partial not in respect of property but in respect of persons making it, it has been held by a series of decisions that the remaining coparceners without any special agreement among themselves, may continue to be coparceners and enjoy as members of joint family the remaining property, and the question whether or not they continue to be joint or separate is to be determined on the evidence in each case.