Testamentary Succession under the Hindu Succession Act

According to the ancient Mitakshara Law, no coparcener could dispose of by will, his undivided coparcenary interest, even if the other coparceners agreed to such a disposition. This rule of Mitakshara Law is now abrogated by this Section, because the Explanation to the Section makes it abundantly clear that the interest of a male Hindu in the coparcenary property of a Mitakshara coparcenary is now property which he is capable of disposing of by will notwithstanding any other rule of law to the contrary.

As seen earlier, according to the Dayabhaga law, a father can, by will, dispose of his entire property, whether ancestral or self- acquired. Likewise, a coparcener of a Dayabhaga coparcenary can, by will, dispose of a whole of his interest in joint family property. Now, after the passing of the Act in 1956, the same rules apply to Mitakshara Joint Family properties also.

The Madras High Court has clarified that what a coparcener can do is dispose of his interest in joint family property by will. There is still no power to do so by a gift. (M.S. B.Y. Board v. Subramania, A.I.R. 1973 Mad. 277)

Related Articles

Section 76 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Explained!

(i) Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it. (ii) Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound […]
Read more

Difference between “Rights in Rem” and “Rights in Personam” – Explained!

Right in Rem: A right in rem is available against the world at large; it is a right available against persons generally. Examples are rights of possession and ownership. Right in Personam: A right in rem is available only against a determinate person or persons, corresponds to a duty imposed on determinate individuals. Examples are […]
Read more
Search for: