Partition and reunion

1. Meaning of partition

Under the Mitakshara, partition has two senses: severance of status (the coparcener ceases to be joint and his share becomes definite) and division by metes and bounds (physical division of the property). The first is a matter of individual volition; the second is the working out of shares. Under the Dayabhaga, shares are always definite, so partition means only physical division.

2. Who can demand partition

• Every adult coparcener, son or (since 2005) daughter, may demand partition at any time, without the consent of the others.
• The father, under the Mitakshara, can effect a partition between himself and his sons, and among his sons, even against their wishes, provided it is fair.
• A son against the father. Under the Mitakshara a son can demand partition even during the father's lifetime and against his will (except where a custom, as once in Punjab, forbade it).
• A minor coparcener, through a next friend, can sue for partition; the court will decree it only if it is for the minor's benefit.
• An adopted son and a son in the womb at the time of partition (who may have the partition re-opened if no share was reserved).
• A purchaser of a coparcener's interest (in States where sale is allowed) may sue for partition to work out what he bought, but does not become a coparcener.

Persons who take a share but cannot demand partition (under the textual law): the father's wife, the mother and the paternal grandmother, who on a partition between father and sons, or among sons, take a share equal to a son's. They were not coparceners and so could not initiate it.

3. Modes of partition

• Unequivocal declaration of intention. A clear and unambiguous declaration by a coparcener of his intention to separate, communicated to the other coparceners, effects severance of status: Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma, 1963 INSC 94, AIR 1964 SC 136. The declaration may be by a notice, a letter, or even a will, but it must be communicated.
• Notice to the karta or the other coparceners.
• Agreement among the coparceners, oral or written. A written partition deed dividing immovable property must be registered; a memorandum merely recording a past partition need not be. After Vineeta Sharma (2020), an oral partition is accepted against a daughter's claim only if backed by public documents.
• Suit for partition. Filing a suit is itself an unequivocal declaration and effects severance from the date of the suit.
• Arbitration, where the coparceners refer the division to arbitrators.
• Conversion to another religion operates as a severance of the convert from the coparcenary.
• Marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by a Hindu member of an undivided family is deemed to effect his severance from the family (section 19), unless the other party is also a Hindu (section 21A).

A partition may be partial, as to persons (one coparcener separates, the rest remain joint) or as to property (some property divided, the rest left joint).

Notional partition. For deaths before 9 September 2005 where a Class I female heir survived, the old proviso to section 6 required a notional partition immediately before death to work out the deceased's share. In Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, 1978 INSC 93, (1978) 3 SCC 383, the Court held that the notional partition must be treated as real for this purpose: the widow takes the share she would have got on such a partition (one quarter, with her husband and two sons), and in addition her share as an heir in her husband's quarter, a total of 7/24. For deaths after 2005, section 6(3) applies the same notional-partition method.

4. Re-opening a partition

A partition once made is final, but it may be re-opened:

• where it was obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence;
• where a son in the womb at the time of partition was not provided for (a son begotten and born after the partition cannot re-open it; he takes his father's share and separate property);
• where a minor's interests were prejudiced by an unfair partition;
• where a coparcener who was absent and unrepresented was left out;
• where there was a mistake in the division.

Property that was accidentally left out of the partition does not re-open it; that property is divided separately among those entitled.

5. Reunion

Reunion is the coming together of members who had separated, so as to restore the joint status. The Mitakshara relies on the text of Brihaspati: one who, being once separated, dwells again through affection with his father, brother or paternal uncle is termed reunited.

Requisites:

• Parties to the partition. Reunion is possible only between persons who were parties to the original partition. Under the Mitakshara it is further limited to the father, brother and paternal uncle; under the Dayabhaga, any parties to the partition may reunite.
• Agreement. There must be an agreement, express or implied, to reunite in estate and interest, that is, to restore the joint status and treat the property as joint. Living together, messing together or carrying on business together is not enough by itself.
• Strict proof. In Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, 1961 INSC 256, AIR 1962 SC 287, the Court held that once a partition is proved, the burden is on the person who alleges reunion to prove it strictly, and that it must be shown that the parties intended to reunite in estate and interest; it is not easily inferred from conduct.
• Capacity. As reunion rests on agreement, the parties must be competent to agree.

Effect. The reunited members are restored to the status of a joint family with all its incidents: community of interest, joint ownership of the reunited property, and (for deaths before 2005) survivorship. Property acquired after reunion with joint funds is joint. Under the old law a reunited coparcener's estate passed under special rules of succession; under the Hindu Succession Act those rules are displaced, and his interest devolves under section 6 like that of any other coparcener.

6. Problem

Brothers A and B partitioned their father's property by a registered deed in 1995. In 2000 they moved back into the family house, pooled their incomes for household expenses and ran a shop together. On A's death B claims A's land by survivorship as a reunited coparcener. A's widow objects.

Issue. Whether A and B reunited.

Law. Reunion requires parties to the partition (brothers qualify) and an agreement to reunite in estate and interest, strictly proved: Bhagwan Dayal.

Application. Living together, sharing household expenses and running a shop are consistent with two separated brothers cooperating; they do not by themselves show an intention to merge their divided estates. B must show something more, such as treating the partitioned lands as joint, joint accounts of the land income, or documents describing them as a joint family after 2000.

Conclusion. On these facts reunion is not proved. A's land passes to his heirs (his widow among them) under section 8 HSA, not to B.

How this is examined

“Re-union” was a short note in January 2026; write the Brihaspati text, the requisites, Bhagwan Dayal and the effect. As a 10-mark essay: “What is partition? Who can demand it? Explain the modes of partition.” Cover severance of status, the list of persons, the modes with Raghavamma, re-opening, and a paragraph on reunion.