Topic:- Guardianship &

Partitioship

Index

Part-I

 Introduction:- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act- Page-4

 Guardianship: Meanining of Minority & Guardianship- Page-4 -5

 Amendments- Page-5

 Evolution of Law-Page 5-7

 Analysis of HGMA 1956 and GWA 1890 -Page -7

 Conflicting law-Page -7
Page 1
  Custody -Page -8, Mother’s Father’s Stand-Page -8-9

 Conclusion-Page-8-9

Part-II

 Partition:- Property Liable for Partition-Page--10

 Deductions and Provisions-Page-10

 Persons who can demand partition Page-10-11

 Persons not entitled to partition but entitled for share after partition-Page-11

 MODES OF PARTITION UNDER HINDU LAW- Page12-18

 Conclusion-Page-18

Part-I

Introduction

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act

The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act were established in the year 1956 as part of the Hindu Code

Bills. This act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir and applies to Hindus

domiciled in our country. This act was launched to enhance the rules under Guardians and Wards Act,

1890. Hindu Minority and Guardianship act was introduced to modernize the Hindu legal tradition and to

Page 2
 codify certain parts of the laws relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus. This act serves

explicitly to define guardianship relationships between minors and adults, as well as between the people of

all ages and their respective property. The various aspects of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,

1956 is as under:

Guardianship

Meaning of minority and guardianship

According to Section 4(a) of the Act, the minority of a particular person is defined by the age of that person.
The age of achievement to be a major varies by religion and time, for example, in ancient Hindu law, the age of
majority was 15 or 16 years, but now it has been increased to 18 years, for Muslims, the age of puberty is
considered the age of majority. Both legitimate and illegitimate minors who have at least one parent who
complies with the stipulations described above are under the jurisdiction of this Law. This concept is called
Majority Law. Under this law, the age of the majority is 18, but if a person is under the care of a guardian, the
age of the majority increases to 21 years.

Guardianship is when a person is appointed under the Guardianship Act to make decisions on behalf of another
person who lacks decision-making capacity due to a disability. Most people with disabilities do not need
guardians and can be supported in making their own decisions. According to Section 4 (b) of the Minority and
Guardianship Act, a guardian is defined as a person who has attained the age of 18 and is adequately caring for
a minor and minor’s property and as well as his own.

Amendments

The law commission report has suggested the following amendments to the Hindu Guardianship and Minorities
Act:

It analyses Section 6 clause (a) of the act which explains that in the case of an unmarried boy or girl, the natural
guardian of a Hindu minor is the father and, after him, the mother. The Commission observes that even after the
Supreme Court ruling in the case of Gita Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India, the mother can become a natural
guardian during the father’s lifetime but only in exceptional circumstances.

Page 3
The Law Commission recommended that the superiority of one parent over the other should be eliminated and
that both the mother and the father should be considered as natural guardians of a minor. The welfare of the
minor should always be the primary consideration in all circumstances.

It has also recommended changes to Section 7 of the act. This section explains that the natural guardianship of a
minor adoptive child passes, at the time of adoption, to the adoptive father and, subsequently, to the adoptive
mother. But this section only talks about the natural guardianship of an adopted child and does not talk about the
adopted daughter.

The courts did not recognize the adoption of a daughter. Thus, at the time of the approval of the law, the
adoption of daughters was only allowed only according to custom and not as per codified law. It was also
enacted before the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, which corrected the legal status of adopting a
daughter by law. Therefore, it recommends that the law now include both the adopted son and the adopted
daughter in the scope of natural guardianship. Also, the Commission recommended that the natural guardians of
an adopted child should include both adoptive parents, along with its recommendations to Section 6 clause (a)
which is provided above.

Evolution of guardianship laws

Through this list of cases, one can understand the evolution of guardianship laws:

In the case of PT Chathu Chettiar vs. VKK Kanaran, it was held that if the father is alive and if he is not
unfit in any manner as per law to be the natural guardian, then the mother cannot claim to be the guardian of the
minor.  

It was seen in the case of Rajalakshmi v. Ramachandran, where the Court stated that the fact that someone
surrenders your property to a minor and appoints yourself as guardian of those property does not mean that you
are a guardian as per law.

The Court threw light on the topic of importance of father as a natural guardian in the case of Essakkayal
Nadder v. Sreedharan Babu. According to the facts of this case, the children did not live with their father and
the mother had expired. The court stated that no one other than the father himself could be the natural guardian
of the minors as the father was very much alive and as per law he was not declared as unfit guardian for any
other reason.

Page 4
The Supreme Court launched a new wave of gender equality in the case of Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of
India. The court addressed the problematic and patriarchal notion that the father is the natural guardian and the
mother becomes the natural guardian only after him. This case is an amazing example to understand the position
of single mothers. According to the facts of this case, an educated and financially independent single mother
wanted to make her son a candidate for her investments, but was prevented from doing so until she shared the
details about the child’s father to complete the obligations of the paperwork. The lower courts declared that it
was mandatory for her to provide details about the father as per Section 11 of the Guardians and Ward Act
1890. Upon appeal, the higher court stated that even if she was a single mother, it was necessary to check
whether the father has any potential interest in the child. However, the Supreme Court did not support the
judgments of the other courts and instead declared two essential principles to govern such cases in the future:

The most important factor in determining any custody case is checking what the welfare of the child is. If as per
law, the circumstances are such that it is in the child’s best interest for the mother to be the natural guardian,
then she can be the natural guardian.

To maintain her privacy, which is her fundamental right, the mother may refuse to disclose information about
the father. This case was a milestone, since in the Indian legal structure, all administrative work, from school
forms, bank details, to official documents, is in the father’s name.

This trend continued in the case of Jajabhai v. Pathankhan. Here, the couple had separated and the youngest
lived with her mother. In these circumstances, the court found it acceptable for the mother to be considered the
child’s natural guardian.

Another judgment passed in the case of Bakshi Ram v. Shila Devi . The court held that due to the mother’s
remarriage her rights as a natural guardian cannot be questioned or restricted ever.

As per Section 6 of the Hindu Minorities and Guardianship Act, until the minor reaches at least five years of
age, the child is supposed to be under the care and protection of the mother. The Rajasthan High Court rejected
the appeal of the father who requested for physical custody of his daughter, in the case of Smt. Dr.  Snehalata
Mathur v. Mahendra Narain. In this case, the mother was granted custody of the child.

Analysis of HGMA 1956 and GWA 1890

Page 5
The Guardian and Wards 1890 is a secular act that applies to every citizen and communities of India while The
Hindu Guardianship and Minorities Act of 1965 is applicable only to Hindus and subsets of Hindus such as
Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Lingayat, Arya Samaj, Followers of Brahmo, Followers of Prarthana Samaj, and
Virashiva.

Other religious communities such as Muslims, Parsis and Christians do not fall within the scope of this law.
This law is added to the Law of Guardians and Wards of 1860 and does not replace the latter. GWA 1890
covers the procedure on how to petition courts for the appointment of a guardian.

Conflicting law

The Indian law commission in its 2015 report has highlighted the gender differences existing in society that
have affected the gender ratio and discrimination and why the empowerment of women is necessary. Shortly
after the enactment of the Hindu Guardianship and Minorities Act, the Hindu Support and Adoption Act of 1956
was also enacted, which recognized the adoption of daughters. 

The law commission report states that the parliament passed the Hindu Guardianship and Minorities Act when
the adoption of daughters was not recognized by Hindu law and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act;
however, the position of the daughters statutorily improved, but the conflict between these two laws has not
been solved yet. To resolve this conflict, the Indian Legal Commission recommended an amendment of section
7 of the Hindu Guardianship and Minorities Act.

Custody

India’s legal commission in its 2015 report has reaffirmed that section 6 of the Hindu guardianship and
minority’s law should be amended because if one law has eliminated such a discrepancy, then another should
also agree to implement the same. This report has also highlighted issues related to custody of a child and the
status of the mother and father in that custody and has proposed that to grant the same guardianship rights to the
father and mother, the commission has suggested joint custody of the child. To soften the concept of joint
custody, the commission had also established certain guidelines for it so that the well-being of the minor is not
compromised. Bearing in mind this same principle, it is convenient to update our laws regarding guardianship,
custody and adoption.

Page 6
Mother’s and father’s stand

The Commission has also recommended another provision of the Hindu Guardianship and Minorities Act,
Section 6, this section deals with the natural guardianship of a child and his property.  As per this Section, the
first natural guardian is the father and only after him, the mother is considered the natural guardian of a child. 

This means that while the father is alive, the mother cannot claim natural guardian status. The legal commission
found that the issue of natural guardianship should not be ignored and the influence of patriarchy is so strong
that it is suppressing the rights of a mother. The Law Commission recommended the modification of Section 6
as then the mother and father both can have the same rights as natural guardians. This matter came to light in
1999 when the Supreme Court gave a judgment on a petition filed by Gita Hariharan to challenge that only the
father can be the first natural guardian and only after him, the mother is considered as a natural guardian. 

The Supreme Court interpreted the word “after” in section 6, which originally meant “after the death of the
father”, but is now “in the absence of the father”. In this case, an absence means that the parent was absent for
an extended period or was inconsiderate of the child or was unfit due to illness. Therefore, the Apex court had
issued judgments where the father is always preferred as a natural guardian but in exceptional circumstances,
the mother is considered as a natural guardian. This was seen in the case of the famous writer Gita Hariharan
where the principle of equity was challenged. Section 19 of the Guardians and Ward Act 1890 was amended in
2010 in which this act had prohibited the court from appointing a guardian for a minor whose father was alive
and who was not in a position to take that responsibility. The 2010 amendment applies this clause to cases
where even the mother is alive.

Conclusion

The Hindu Guardianship and Minorities Act 1956 established that the father would be the natural guardian of
the child and only after him the mother would be considered as a guardian. In the case of the married minor, the
husband would be considered as her guardian. The welfare of the child has always been top priority under
HMGA 1956 and GWA 1890. As per Section 7 of the Hindu Guardianship and Minorities Act, the natural
guardianship of a minor adopted child at the time of adoption goes to the adoptive father and only after him it
goes to the adoptive mother. Over time, as society has developed, many legal steps have been taken for the
empowerment of women in terms of gender and sex ratio, but this loophole has not been addressed due to deep-
seated preference of the son over the daughter. Not only can a hint of patriarchy be seen in the laws mentioned

Page 7
above, in which the father is the first natural guardian and the mother is considered a first guardian only after the
father. Therefore, in today’s time when women are being empowered and society is developing rapidly, these
laws need an amendment to cope with the changing environment and so that the future generation has no partial
basis of mother and father.

PARTITION

PROPERTY LIABLE FOR PARTITION

It is only the coparcenary property which is subject to the partition. The separate property is not liable to
partition at all, as it belongs absolutely to the owner thereof.

Secondly, the property to which the law of primogeniture applies, cannot be divided, e.g., a Raj. Nor can family
idols and place of worship can be divided. Similarly, the following properties are not liable to partition:

1. Impartible estate i.e., property which descends to one member only, either by custom or under any
provision of law or by terms of grant.
2. Property indivisible by nature, e.g., ponds, staircase, passage
3. Family idols and relies which are object of warship
4. Separate property of a member
5. The places of worship and sacrifice or the property which has been dedicated to religious and charitable
purposes.
6. The well and the rights to draw water from the well
7. The ornaments and the dress materials given to the wives of the coparceners

Manu says- following properties are not subject to in division

1. Properties indivisible by nature like Dress, vehicle, Ornaments, Cooked food, Water and female slaves,
as road, garden, utensils, documents, right to way, furniture etc.
2. Properties meant for pious use, or scarifies, object for worship.3.
3. Separate property of a member

In respect of those properties three methods of adjustment are available-

Page 8
 1. may be enjoyed by coparcenary by jointly or by turn
2. May be allotted to the share of coparcener and its value adjusted.
3. May be sold and distributed the incident

DEDUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS

Some provisions must be made out of the property liable to partition before any partition is affected.

1. Debts incurred for joint family.

2. Personal debts of the father not incurred for illegal or immoral purposes.
3. Maintenance of dependent female members and disqualified heirs.
4. Marriage expenses of unmarried daughters of the last male holder but not of the collaterals.
5. Expenses for the funeral ceremony of the widow and the mother of the last male holder.

PERSONS WHO ARE ENTITLED TO DEMAND PARTITION

Every coparcener has a right of partition and entitle for share in partition.

1. Father- he can impose a partition, partial or total between his minor son and himself with Bonafide
intention, else, it will reopen. In case of major son and father, it should be by mutual consent.
2. Sons and Grandsons, and grate grandson. Under Bombay School, the son has no right partition without the
assent of his father, if the father is joining with his own father and in case of Punjab Customary Law, as
under Punjab Customary law son have no right by birth.
3. Son Born after Partition- according to Vishnu and Yajnavalkya the partition should be re-open to give the
share after born son. However, Gautama, Manu, Nerada says the after born son could get the share of his
father alone

According to Mitakshara we have few rules for this-

1. Son conceived at the time of Partition but born after it – person in the womb is equated the person exist.
The tax lay down that if the pregnancy is know the partition should be postponed till the time child birth, if
the other coparceners are not ready for this a equal share should be reserve if the child born son share
should be allowed to them, in case female it should be expand on her marriage.

Page 9
 2. Not in the womb when partition take place if the pregnancy is not known and no share has been reserved
then the partition should be re-open after childbirth.
3. When Father has taken his share in the partition- son become the coparcener with his father.
4. When Father has not taken his share in the partition – son has a right to reopen the partition and get his
share.
5. Adopted Son- he has right if partition take place after adoption, but if partition take place before adoption,
he has no right.
6. Illegitimate Son- not entitle for partition and share but for maintenance only.
7. Son void marriage and annulled marriage-not entitle.
8. Minor Coparcener- no distinction between major or minor.

PERSONS NOT ENTITLED TO PARTITION BUT ENTITLED FOR SHARE AFTER PARTITION

No female has a right to partition but if partition takes place, some female (father’s wife, mother and
grandmother) has a right for share in partition. However, after 2005 amendment, daughters are also entitled for
it.

MODES OF PARTITION

It is not necessary under Hindu law’ that the partition should be executed by a registered instrument. Even a
family compromise between the coparceners would be sufficient to affect a partition and by virtue of that they
become entitled to individual share and use thereof.

 According to Supreme Court, partition may be partial or total. Partition could be partial with respect to the
members of joint family or joint family property. When a partition takes place, the presumption is about the
total partition. But where some members contend that the partition was partial with respect to members or
property, onus is on them to prove it.

A partition can be affected by the father even during his lifetime among his sons. A partition could also take
place by:

Page 10
 (i) agreement,
(ii) institution of a suit to that effect,
(iii) Arbitration.

4. It is not necessary for partition that the joint family property is divided by every bit of it. The severance
in the joint status could be brought about by any of the above mode and some property could be used by
the coparceners as joint tenants. The following modes of partition are important: —

1. by Declaration
Partition under the Mitakshara law is severance of joint status and as such it is a matter of individual volition.
An unequivocal indication of desire by single member of joint family to separate is sufficient to affect a
partition. The filing of a suit for partition is a clear expression of such an intention.

The oral or written communications by a coparcener could be enough to sever the joint status but the
communication could be withdrawn with the consent of other coparceners and with its withdrawal partition
would not take place.

It is not necessary that there should be a partition by agreement. It can take place by an act or transaction of
coparcener, by which there could be an indication of the separation of his interest. What type of act, conduct or
expression of intention would disrupt joint status, will be decided on the basis of facts in each case.

Where the communication of the intention to separate has been given with an intent to give only a threat to it
without any real desire to this effect and later on the intention is not perused, it would not be enough for
severance. There would be no separation on account of the fact that some one of the members of joint family
has filed a suit to get a declaration of insolvency for himself. In absence of any joint property mere
communication of the intention to separate would be enough.

In Raghvamma v. Chenchemma the Supreme Court laid down that it is settled law

That a member of joint Hindu family can bring about a separation in status by a definite declaration of his
intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. Severance in status is brought
about by unilateral exercise of discretion.

Page 11
One cannot, however, declare or manifest his mental state in a vacuum. To declare is to make known, to assert
to others. ‘Others’ must necessarily be those affected by the said declaration. Therefore, a member of a joint
Hindu family seeking to separate himself from others will have to make known his intention to the other
members of the family from whom he seeks to separate. The process of manifestation may vary with
circumstances.

It is implicit in the expression ‘declaration’ that it should be to the knowledge of the persons affected thereby.
An uncommunicated declaration is not better than a mere formation or harbouring of an intention to separate. It
becomes effective as a declaration only after its communication to the person or persons who would be affected
thereby.

The Supreme Court in Puttorangamim v. Rangamma1, reiterated that

“It is, however, necessary that the member of the joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself must make
known his intention to other members of the family from whom he seeks to separate. The process of
communication may vary in the circumstances of each particular case. The proof of a formal despatch or
receipt of the communication by other members of the family is not essential, nor its absence fatal to the
severance of the status.

It is of course, necessary that the declaration to be effective should reach the person or persons affected by some
process appropriate to the given situation and circumstances of the particular case”.

“It is, of course possible for the members of the family by a subsequent agreement to reunite, but the mere
withdrawal of the unilateral declaration of the intention to separate, which already had resulted in the division in
status, cannot amount to an agreement to reunite.”

The Patna High Court laid down that for separation a division of property by metes and bounds is not necessary,
there must be unequivocal declaration by a member to show that he separated from the rest of the family.

There is no need of giving a written notice by one coparcener to the other coparcener. The expression of the
desire of a coparcener to separate can be inferred from the cognate

Page 12
Circumstances. An undivided coparcener cannot merely by declaration and definition of his share in a deed of
transfer executed by him validly make a transfer of a share to which he would have been entitled if he had
affected a partition before making the transfer.

The unequivocal intention to separate has to be communicated to the other coparceners in order to affect a
partition by severance of status. A severance of status is not brought about by transferring a certain specific
share in joint family property.

(2) Partition by Will:

Partition may be affected by a coparcener by making a will containing a clear and unequivocal intimation to the
other coparceners of his desire to sever himself from joint family or containing an assertion of his right to
separate. In Potti Laxmi v. Potti Krishnamma, the Supreme Court observed,

An ineffective will, sometimes though not always, if otherwise consented by all adult member’s may be
effective as a family arrangement but as the father of a joint Hindu family has no power to impose a family
arrangement under the guise of exercising the power of partition, the power which undoubtedly he has but
which he had failed to effectively exercise, cannot in absence of consent of all members bind them as family
arrangement”.

Where partition takes place on a unilateral will of a coparcener, it cannot be brought to an end by revocation of
the will. The same consequence will follow where a desire to severance has been expressed by the guardian of a
minor coparcener and the court has upheld its propriety.

(3) Conversion to another Faith:

Conversion of a coparcener to any other religion or faith operates as partition of the joint status as between him
and other members of the family. The coparcener, who has converted, no longer possesses the right of
survivorship as he ceases to be a coparcener from the moment of his

Conversion and he takes his share in the family property as it stood at the date of his conversion. Reconversion
of the convert to Hinduism does not ipso facto bring about his coparcenary relationship in absence of
subsequent act or transactions pointing out to a reunion.

Page 13
(4) Marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954:

Marriage of a Hindu under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 causes severance of joint status. If a Hindu marries a
Hindu under Hindu laws, he will be the part of the family but if married under special marriage act 1872 then
the person was severed from the family. Later came into force the special marriage act 1954 here also if a Hindu
marries a Hindu under Hindu law and subsequently gets registered under the special marriage act then he will be
severed from the family. Later in 1976 more importance was given to the religion of the person being married
and not the way the marriage takes place.

(5) Partition by Agreement:

An unequivocal expression of the desire to use the joint family property in certain defined shares may lead the
members of joint family to enter an agreement to affect a partition. The two ideas, the severance of joint status
and a de facto division of property are distinct. As partition under the Mitakshara law is affected on severance of
joint status, the allotment of shares may be done later. Once the members of joint family or heads of different
branches of the coparcenary agree to specification of shares, the same can be treated to result in severance of
joint status though the division by metes and bounds may take place later on.

In Approver v. Ram Subba Iyer2 the Privy Council had observed

that no coparcener can claim any defined share in the joint family property in a joint family, but where the coparceners
enter into an agreement to the effect that every member will have a specific and defined share in future, the joint status
is affected and every coparcener acquires a right to separate his specific share and use the same to exclusion of others.

(6) Partition by Arbitration:

An agreement between the members of joint family whereby they appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate and divide
the property, operates as a partition from the date thereof. The mere fact that no award has been made is no
evidence of a renunciation of the intention to separate. Where all the coparceners jointly have referred the matter
relating to the partition of their shares in the joint family to an arbitrator, this very fact expressly indicates their
intention to separate from joint status. In such cases even if award is not given, their intention is not dissipated.

(7) Partition by Father:

Page 14
The father may cause a severance of sons even without their consent. It is the remnant of the ancient doctrine of
‘Patria Protests’. The father during his lifetime is competent to effect such partition under Hindu law and it
would be binding on his sons.

It would be binding on the sons not because they have assented to it but because the father has got the power to
do so, although this power is subject to certain limitations on the basis of its utility and general interest of the
family. It has to be considered as to whether it is lawful in accordance with the spirit of Hindu law or not.

Where the father has divided the property unequally amongst his sons, then too it would be binding. But no
person can give his consent to the unequal share on behalf of a minor. The sons have the right to challenge the
unequal division of shares or an act of unilateral division of shares by the father, but it will have no bearing on
the severance of their joint status. Where the father has divided his self-acquired property unequally among his
sons, it could not be challenged by them, nor is there any need of a registered deed to this effect.

(8) Partition by Suit:

Mere institution of a partition suit disrupts the joint status and a severance of joint status immediately takes
place. A decree may be necessary for working out the resultant severance and for allotting definite shares but
the status of a plaintiff as separate in estate is brought about on his assertion of his right to separate whether he
obtains a consequential judgment or not.

So even if such suit was to be dismissed, that would not affect the division in status which must be held to have
taken place when the action was instituted. Ordinarily a partition is affected by instituting a suit to this effect. In
case of a suit for partition in joint status, father’s consent to the suit for partition is no longer necessary. The son
is fully eligible to file a suit for partition even during the lifetime of father.

When the plaintiff files a suit for partition the share which he received in the earlier partition would not be free
from charges and liabilities. If the creditors have obtained the decree against the joint family property, then even
that share of the plaintiff which he did not receive, would also be liable in the same manner as that of the other
coparceners.

The above nine modes of partition are not exhaustive. There may be other situations as well which, if expressed
in equivocal intention for partition, will be admissible.

Page 15
Exception:
The general rule mentioned above will not apply where a suit is withdrawn before trial by the plaintiff on the
ground that he did not want separation any more. In such a case there would be no severance of joint status.
Where the suit is proved to be fraudulent transaction resorted to with an intent to create evidence of separation,
no severance in the joint status takes place. If the defendant dies and the suit is withdrawn on that ground there
is no separation.

Mere institution of a suit for partition by a minor followed by abatement of the suit by death of the sole
defendant does not affect the severance of the joint status.

(a) Re-union:
The leading text on re-union is the text of Brihaspati which says, “He who, being once separated, dwells again
through affection, with father, brother or a paternal uncle, is termed reunited with him.”

A re-union can take place between persons who were parties to the original partition [Bala Bux v. Rukhma3.

According to Mitakshara, re-union cannot take place with any person indifferently but with father, a brother or a
paternal uncle. According to Dayabhaga also, a re-union is valid only with a father, brother or paternal uncle.

There is a difference of opinion between the different schools on the question whether any two persons who
were parties to the partition may reunite. According to Bombay and Mithila schools any two persons who were
parties to the original partition can reunite. According to Banaras, Bengal and Madras schools reunion can take
place only with the father, the brother or uncle who has been expressly named in the text of Brihaspati.

No writing is necessary for a reunion. It may take place by verbal arrangement but there must be an intention to reunite.
Mere living and carrying on business together is not conclusive evidence of reunion. [Bhabgati v. Murlidhar,

To constitute a reunion there must be an intention of the parties to reunion is estate and interest. There can be no
reunion unless there is an agreement between the parties to reunite in estate with the intention to remit them
their former status as members of a joint family. But possession of family properties at the time of reunion is not
essential. A minor cannot reunite because he is not competent to contract.

CONCLUSION

Page 16
Partition is a concept under Hindu law and is regulated by mainly two schools of thought, i.e. Mitakshara and
Dayabhaga. Partition amongst a joint Hindu family means severance of status of jointness and unity of
possession among the members of the family. The partition can take place by various methods like via
agreement, arbitration, notice, will etc. Under Mitakshara School, the partition may take place by stripes or by
branch, however under Dayabhaga School, partition takes place only after the death of the Karta, the Dayabhaga
School follows no concept like coparcenary.

Page 17