|follow us on twitter||Follow @intolegalworld|
Sale or Mortgage of undivided interest in Bombay, madras and Madhya Pradesh
According to Mitakshara law as administered in Bombay and Masrass states, c coparcener may sell, mortgage, or otherwise alienate for value, his undivided interest in coparcenary property without the consent of the other coparceners. Where the sale was for consideration, there could be no bar against a joint owner against selling his share and the sale could not be set at naught.
The same rules apply in Madhya Pradesh.
When in Hindu undivided family consisting of father, son and daughter, the father sold half of his share in the property to the daughter and it was proved that the sale was valid and not a sham one, the son’s suit for injuction claiming the same properties as his absolute properties, was liable to be dismissed and the daughter would be entitled to a decree of partition.
Sale or Mortgage of undivided Interest— Other States
According to Mitakshara law as administered in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, no coparcener can alienate even for value, his undivided interest without the consent of the other coparceners, unless the alienation be for legal necessity, or form payment by a father of antecedent debts. The consent of the other coparceners is necessary, even if the alienation is made in favour of a coparcener.
 Tukaram v. Ramchandra, (1869) 6 Bom HC AC 247; Vasudev v. Venkatesh, (1873) 10 Bom HC 139
 Bachna Ram v. Ratna Ram, AIR 2012 Raj 114: 2012 (2) WJN 626
 Syed Kasam v. Jorawar Singh, (1922) 49 IA 358 : AIR 1922 PC 353; Bhojraj v. Nathuram, (1917) 37 IC 498 : 12 NLR 161 : AIR 1916 Nag 25
 Nallappa Gounder v. Lakshmi, AIR 1993 Mad 78
 Madho Prashad v. Mehrban Singh, (1891) 18 Cal 157: 12 IA 194; Sadabart Prasad v. Foolbash, (1869) 3 Beng LRFBR 31
 Chandar v. Dampat, (1894) 16 All 369
 Jwala Prasad v. Maharajah Protab. (1916) 1 Pat LJ 497
 Alla Ram v. V. Atma Ram, (1933) 14 Lah 584