Supreme Court on Family Reunion under Hindu Law

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will again discuss the case of R. Janakiammal v. S.K. Kumarasamy (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1537/2016, that we had discussed yesterday in relation to Compromise Decree. Today, we will discuss this very case to understand the concept of Reunion in Hindu Law.

 

As I had already stated in yesterday’s show that the facts of this case are not relevant for our purposes. Hence, I will not discuss the same here.

 

Most of you must be knowing that there exists the concept of Joint Hindu Family under the Hindu Law that essentially consists of persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. It is equally known the members of such Joint Hindu Family are free to seek partition and separate themselves by taking away their share from the property that is vested with the Joint Hindu Family. In this regard, an interesting question came up before up the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if an erstwhile member of a Joint Hindu Family reunites, what would be its legal implication? Would the parties revert to their former status in the Joint Hindu Family, or would it lead to an entirely new arrangement?

 

Therefore, let us understand the views of the Supreme Court in relation to Reunion under Hindu Law.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court observed that a member of a Joint Hindu Family can separate himself from the other members of the family and is, on separation, entitled to have his share in the Joint Hindu Family Property. The other members of the Joint Hindu Family may continue to enjoy their status as a member of a Joint Hindu Family.

 

Secondly, the Court quoted the famous book, Mulla on Hindu Law, and observed that “a reunion can take place between any persons who were parties to the original partition. Only males can reunite.”

 

Thirdly, the Court stated that if a partition takes place between the members of a Joint Hindu Family, then “reunion is the only means by which the joint status can be re-established.” However, the Court cautioned that like any other disputed fact, reunion must be strictly proved as to constitute a reunion there must be an intention of the parties to reunite in estate and interest.

 

Fourthly, the Court also explained that “mere jointness in residence, food or worship or a mere trading together cannot bring about the conversion of the divided status into a joint, unless an intention to become re­united in the sense of the Hindu law is clearly established” and to establish the same, the conduct of the members of the Hindu Joint Family must be of such an incontrovertible character that an agreement of reunion must be necessarily implied therefrom.

 

Fifthly, the Court further clarified by quoting Mayne’s Hindu Law that “as the presumption is in favour of union until a partition is made out, so after a partition the presumption would be against a reunion.” To establish it, it is not only required to show that the parties live and eat together, but also that they do so with the intention of forming a joint estate and cogent evidence is required to prove that the members of the Joint Hindu Family have succeeded in restoring all their rights and obligations that follow from the fresh formation of the family.

 

Sixthly, the Court reproduced certain excerpts from the Ancient Hindu Text of Brahaspati Smriti, Mitakshara and Smriti Chandrika. The pertinent ones along with their meaning are: -

It means that he who being once separated dwells again through affection with his father or paternal uncle is termed reunited. Let us move on to the next quote:

It means that when two coparceners have again become reunited through affection, they shall mutually participate in each other’s properties. Let us move on to the next quote:

It means that an association is not necessarily being in co­residence, the association is expressed to be through wealth; it should be understood that the reassociation of the separated members shall be to the extent of pooling together of their wealth and resources, as before, and not merely by a co­residence only. 

With respect to these Sanskrit Quotations, the Court observed that “reunion is a reversal of the process of partition” and “the mutual love, affection arising from blood relationship and the desire to reunite proceeding therefrom, constitutes the very foundation of reunion.”

 

Seventhly, it was held that when a reunion is disputed, it must be proved as any other disputed question of fact that all the reunited members have brought back their properties, that they took away in the partition, to form a common stock.

 

And lastly, the Court concluded by stating that there is no need to have a formal and express agreement to reunite and “such an agreement can be established by clear evidence of conduct incapable of explanation on any other footing.”

 

Those were the observations of the Court. I hope that the meaning of reunion in Hindu Law is clear by now.