Until a partition takes place the interest of the coparcener is not defined or definite interest. It is a fluctuating interest varying with the number of the coparceners i.e. with births and deaths of coparceners, in the joint family. The moment the coparcener’s share becomes an ascertained definite share he ceases to be an undivided coparcener.
This was explained by Lord Westbury in Appovier v. Rama Subbier, 11 MIA 75. In that case the plaintiff and his five coparceners divided a part of the joint family properties by metes and bounds in 1834. In 1855 the plaintiff sued for partition ignoring the arrangement of 1834, and claiming that the family was still joint and undivided since some of the properties had not been divided by metes and bounds.
Image Source: i.ytimg.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Privy Council pointed out that the family had become divided in 1834 itself and could not be treated as a joint family thereafter. The Privy Council observed: “According to the true notion of an undivided family in Hindu Law, no individual member of the family while it remains undivided, can predicate of the joint and undivided property, that he, that particular member, has a certain definite share”.
The effect of the arrangement of 1834 was to enable each member to claim a definite and certain share although some of the properties had not been actually severed and divided. So it operated as a partition and the joint family had become divided. The plaintiff’s claim was accordingly rejected.