LCI Learning
Master the Art of Contract Drafting & Corporate Legal Work with Adv Navodit Mehra. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Yamini Choudhary   02 March 2023

Moot problem

Yashvardhan Raichand, Karta of the Hindu Joint Family consisting of his wife Nandini Raichand, two sons Rahul Raichand(married), Rohan Raichand (unmarried) and unmarried daughter Naina. Yashvardhan Raichand was running joint family business with his sons at Nabha (Punjab) by diverting a major portion of the income, yielded from 200 acres of ancestral land, into the business of the family. All members of the joint family were living in an ancestral house. Rahul Raichand had 3 sons; namely, Krishi Raichand, Aryan Raichand and Vikas Raichand and one daughter Malvika Raichand. 
Yashvardhan Raichand and his wife died in the year 1985 and 1986 respectively. After the death of his father, Rahul Raichand became the head of the family. On becoming the head of the family he undertook a large scale diversification of business which was shifted to Patiala, and in order to augment the joint family business, Rahul Raichand sold 10 acres of ancestral land for rupees 10 crores to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala. He also made a gift of Rs. 10 lacs in favor of his unmarried daughter Malvika Raichand. 
Vikas Raichand the youngest son of Rahul Raichand was sent to England for his higher education at the expenses of the family. After doing Bar at law, he returned to India and established a flourishing practice as an advocate. Although he was staying in the joint family, he kept his earnings for himself, which was not liked by his two elder brothers and his sister.
Frustrated and depressed by the behavior of his own sons, Rahul Raichand died of heart attack in 2006. Realizing the reactionary behavior of her brothers, Malvika Raichand daughter of Rahul Raichand filed a suit in the year 2007 for declaration of ownership as coparcener and co-sharer in the joint family property wherein she also made a prayer for joint possession of the property in the dispute that included agricultural land, business assets/goodwill and ancestral house. She also prayed that income of Vikas Raichand, advocate be included in the joint property of the family. 
The alienation made by Rahul Raichand in favor of Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala was also challenged. In this suit she impleaded all her 3 brothers, Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala and her uncle Rohan Raichand as defendants. In order to establish her claim, Malvika Raichand invoked Section 6 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956. 
The defendants pleaded that:
The alienation in favor of Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala was for legal necessity and benefits of estate and, therefore, valid.
The amendment made by the Hindu succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was prospective and the alienation under challenge being prior to the amendment was not affected by the change in law.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 being wholly against the concept of coparcenary and joint Hindu family property in law is illegal and ultra-vires. 



 1 Replies

S. Gupta (Legal Scholar)     22 December 2024

 Analysis of the Moot Problem that you have given above is as follows :-

 Facts of the Case
- **Parties Involved**: Yashvardhan Raichand (Karta), his wife Nandini Raichand, sons Rahul and Rohan Raichand, daughter Naina, and Rahul's children (Krishi, Aryan, Vikas, and Malvika).
- **Business and Property**: The joint family business was run using income from 200 acres of ancestral land. The family lived in an ancestral house.


- **Key Events**:
  - Yashvardhan and Nandini Raichand passed away in 1985 and 1986.
  - Rahul Raichand became the head of the family, diversified the business, and sold 10 acres of ancestral land.
  - Rahul gifted Rs. 10 lacs to his daughter Malvika.
  - Vikas Raichand pursued higher education in England and later practiced law in India, keeping his earnings separate.
  - Rahul Raichand died in 2006.

Legal Issues Raised

1. **Malvika's Claim**: Malvika filed a suit in 2007 for declaration of ownership as a coparcener and co-sharer in the joint family property, including agricultural land, business assets, and the ancestral house. She also sought to include Vikas's income in the joint family property.
2. **Challenge to Alienation**: Malvika challenged the sale of 10 acres of ancestral land to Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala.
3. **Defendants' Plea**:
   - The alienation was for legal necessity and benefits of the estate.
   - The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, was prospective and did not affect the prior alienation.
   - The amendment was against the concept of coparcenary and joint Hindu family property and was ultra-vires.

 Legal Provisions Involved
- **Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956**: Deals with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property.
- **Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005**: Amended Section 6 to grant equal rights to daughters as coparceners.

My Analysis
1. **Malvika's Claim as Coparcener**:
   - Under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughters have equal rights as sons in coparcenary property. Malvika, being a daughter, can claim her share as a coparcener.
   - The amendment is retrospective in nature, applying to all daughters born before or after the amendment, provided the partition has not been effected before 20th December 2004.

2. **Validity of Alienation**:
   - The sale of 10 acres of ancestral land by Rahul Raichand can be justified if it was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. This includes purposes like paying off debts, family expenses, or business needs.
   - The defendants need to prove that the alienation was indeed for legal necessity.

3. **Inclusion of Vikas's Income**:
   - Vikas's earnings from his profession as an advocate are considered his self-acquired property and not part of the joint family property. Therefore, Malvika's claim to include his income in the joint family property is not valid.

4. **Prospective Nature of the Amendment**:
   - The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is prospective but applies to all daughters irrespective of their birth date, provided the partition has not been effected before the cut-off date.

5. **Ultra-Vires Argument**:
   - The argument that the amendment is ultra-vires is weak, as the amendment was enacted to ensure gender equality and has been upheld by the courts.

In my Conclusion
Malvika Raichand has a valid claim to be recognized as a coparcener and co-sharer in the joint family property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The alienation of ancestral land by Rahul Raichand can be upheld if proven to be for legal necessity. Vikas Raichand's income from his profession remains his self-acquired property and cannot be included in the joint family property.

I hope this helps! If you need further assistance or have more questions, feel free to ask.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register