Coparcenary computation of 3 generations from holder

Coparcenary property which is part of hindu undivided family.

are you sure?????

I am presuming you are saying so because no brothers are shown, coparcenary is not only between brothers but can also be between, son and grand son they both become coparcenar.

Oops coparcenery besides doesnt have anything to do with females in either case.. (I am aware of 1956 and 2005 ammendments)

here is what coparcanary means...

Hindu coparcenary - A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. These are the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being, in other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent. See ' 217. The above propositions must be read in the light of what has been stated in the note at the top of this chapter. To understand the formation of a coparcenary, it is important to note the distinction between ancestral property and separate property. Property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father's father or father's fathers' father, is ancestral property.
Property inherited by him from other relations is his separate property. The essential feature of ancestral property is that if the person inheriting it has sons, grandsons or great-grandsons, they become joint owner's coparceners with him. They become entitled to it due to their birth. These propositions also must be read in the light of what has been stated in the note at the top of this chapter."

Please if you dont know please dont reply dont act and keep saying whats next.....

Firstly you are refering to english definations of coparcenary and not hindu coparcenary...both are completely different.. hindu coparcenary is by birth and devolves by survivor ship on remaining co-parceners. besides even a father and son can form co-parcenary. father and great grandson.. etc.,  --- A son takes a right by birth if property held by father so does his grand son and great grandson in equal shares thery by creating co-parcenary property i.,e 4 generations including the father.

So law you are stating is alien to Hindus. Yes I am refereing to Mulla's principles of Hindu Law, Hindu uncodified law as well as 1956 section 6 of Hindu sucession act. 

Ok good, I too like such interactions/arguments  as gives you great knowledge, so firstly thanks for giving your time and interest.

Ok here we go

There is a presumption father and son are joint on birth unless proven contrary constituting joing family. and it is on the opposite party to prove the severance of partition.. 

Regards

Coparcenary is a narrower form of joint hindu family, By default any father and son are presumed to be joint if the property in hands of father is ancestral a child by birth acquires right so to say

When A inherits a property from his father, grandfather or great grandfather the property is ancestral in hands of A. and as soon as A has a child the child becomes coparcener with the father (thereby creating joint family and importantly coparcenary). It doesnt to require death of A for A's son to get a right in the property. Unless the properties are partitioned it cannot be said the joint family property has severed or ceased to exit therby the burdon if any would be on oppsite party to prove severance so by default father and son are joint. 

Its just fools like you calls your self as consultant and dont know where you are going, the question is specified in the first post itself and to explain to fools like you i have to give all the laws which appears to me is bouncer to you.. The question that needs to be answered here is explained in the first post itself -ie., wether the great great grandson of A  acquires any right by birth, (SEE FIRST POST) As the property of A is self acquired and on death of A it passes to B via inheritance so thereby it cannot be said as ancestral in hands of A and only when B acquires it it takes form of ancestral so there by when we say son, grand son, great grandson should we say of A or should we say of B will acquire by birth so there by the question is wether A's great-great grandson will have right by birth (who is great grandson of B) as the matter of fact as in case of A it does not become ancestral so can he per se be called as holder? or is it only when property passed on the B(A's Son) when property becomes ancestral his(B's) son, grand son and great grandson gets right by virtue of their birth.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Since your case is complicated case as such I require documents and same may be send to my email for detailed legal advise.

With regards,

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar