It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that even though the partition deed was bogus there was in law a severance of joint family status and the family could not continue to be joint (1) I.L.R. 14 Bom. 463. (3) A.I.R. 1937 Bom. 279. (2) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 228. (4) A.T.R. 1943 P.C. 196.
after 20th April, 1944 which was the date of the partition deed. In other words, the argument was that there was a declaration by the coparceners of their intention to separate and that declaration was sufficient to put an end to the joint family. status of the two brothers. In our opinion, there is no substance in this argument. It is now well established that an agreement between all the copar- ceners is not essential to the disruption of the joint family status, but a definite and unambiguous indication of intention by one member to separate himself from the family and to enjoy his share in severalty will amount in law to a division of status. It is immaterial in such a case whether the other members assent or not. Once the decision is unequivocally expressed, and clearly intimated to his co- sharers, the right of the coparcener to obtain and possess the share to which he admittedly is entitled, is unimpeach- able. But in order to operate as a severance of joint status, it is necessary; that the expression of intention by the member separating himself from the joint family must be definite and unequivocal. If, however., the expression of intention is a mere pretence or a sham, there is in the eye of law no separation of the joint family status.
Supreme Court of India
Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh & Ors vs Ramchandra Ravagowda Sankh & Anr on 9 January, 1969
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 1076, 1969 SCR (3) 245
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
SHAH, J.C.
GROVER, A.N.
