Radhamma v. Muddukrishna
“Coparcener Can Bequeath Undivided Interest in Joint Family Property by Will”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, a Hindu coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in joint family property by Will, relaxing the traditional Mitakshara rule of survivorship.
The Bottom Line
A coparcener can bequeath his share in ancestral property through a Will, and such testamentary disposition is valid under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Will Executed
Patel Hanume Gowda executed Will bequeathing property to his son
Will Executed
Patel Hanume Gowda executed Will bequeathing property to his son
Codicil Executed
Codicil to the Will was executed
Codicil Executed
Codicil to the Will was executed
Death of Patel Hanume Gowda
Testator died, triggering succession dispute
Death of Patel Hanume Gowda
Testator died, triggering succession dispute
Partition Suit Filed
Second wife and daughter filed suit challenging the Will
Partition Suit Filed
Second wife and daughter filed suit challenging the Will
Supreme Court Judgment
Court upheld validity of testamentary disposition of coparcenary interest
Supreme Court Judgment
Court upheld validity of testamentary disposition of coparcenary interest
The Story
Patel Hanume Gowda owned several moveable and immovable properties which were joint family properties. He had one son, Narasimhaiah (first defendant), from his first wife who predeceased him. He later married Smt. Hanumakka (Plaintiff 1) and had a daughter (Plaintiff 2) with her.
After Patel Hanume Gowda's death, Narasimhaiah became the Karta of the joint family. The plaintiffs (second wife and daughter) filed a suit seeking to declare a Will dated 16.06.1962 and a codicil dated 18.07.1962 executed by Patel Hanume Gowda as null and void.
The defendants contended that Patel Hanume Gowda had validly bequeathed the entire property in favor of Narasimhaiah (first defendant) under a registered Will. The key question was whether a coparcener could dispose of his undivided interest in joint family property by Will.
The Trial Court and High Court upheld the validity of the Will, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Will cannot dispose of joint family property
The appellants argued that undivided interest in joint family property cannot be bequeathed as it devolves by survivorship, not succession.
Will should be declared void
The Will and codicil should be declared null and void as they attempt to defeat the rights of Class I heirs under Hindu Succession Act.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Section 30 permits testamentary disposition
Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act specifically empowers a Hindu to dispose of his interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property by Will.
Valid Will properly executed
The Will was properly executed and registered, meeting all legal requirements for validity.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court analyzed Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that the traditional Mitakshara rule against testamentary disposition of undivided coparcenary interest has been relaxed by statute. A Hindu can now bequeath his share in joint family property through a validly executed Will.
The undivided interest of a Hindu in a joint family property can be disposed of by Will as per Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.
Para Para 15
Directly answers the main legal question about testamentary disposition.
The rule against disposition of undivided coparcenary interest was relaxed by Section 30.
Para Para 18
Confirms statutory modification of traditional Mitakshara law.
The provision is an exemption to the general rule that the interest of a Male Hindu in joint family property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary after his death.
Para Para 20
Explains the relationship between survivorship and testamentary succession.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Respondents' claim to property under the Will upheld; appellants' partition suit dismissed.
Directions Issued
- Will executed by Patel Hanume Gowda is valid
- Testamentary disposition of coparcenary interest is permissible under Section 30
- Property passes as per the Will to the beneficiary named therein
Key Legal Principles Established
Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act permits testamentary disposition of coparcenary interest
The Mitakshara rule of survivorship has been modified by statute
A validly executed Will can override the doctrine of survivorship
Coparcener's interest in joint family property is definable and can be bequeathed
Testamentary freedom is now recognized in Hindu law for ancestral property
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- You can leave your share in ancestral property to anyone through a properly written Will
- Making a Will is important to ensure your property goes to your chosen beneficiaries
- Even joint family property can be passed through Will to specific persons
- Get your Will registered for stronger legal protection
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 30
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus.”
Relevance: Permits testamentary disposition of coparcenary property.
Section 6
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“Interest of a male Hindu in coparcenary property devolves by survivorship upon surviving members.”
Relevance: Traditional rule of survivorship now subject to exception under Section 30.
Related Cases & Precedents
Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar
followed(1987) 1 SCC 204
Earlier case affirming testamentary disposition of coparcenary interest.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.