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.