Concept of Joint Family, Coparcenary, Joint Family Property and Coparcenary Property — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. In Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT (1975), the Supreme Court held that a joint Hindu family:

   • Cannot exist without joint property
   • Can exist with a sole male member, his wife, and unmarried daughter (correct answer)
   • Requires at least two coparceners
   • Must have a son

   Explanation. The Court held a joint Hindu family is a status that can exist even with just one male member, his wife, and unmarried daughter — no property or additional coparcener required.

2. According to State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram (1969), a Mitakshara coparcenary is best described as:

   • A creature of contract
   • A creature of law (correct answer)
   • A type of partnership firm
   • A form of trust

   Explanation. The Supreme Court described a Mitakshara coparcenary as 'a creature of law' — it cannot be created by agreement between family members.

3. Which of the following is NOT one of the essential incidents of coparcenary listed in Ghamandi Ram?

   • Right to demand partition at any time
   • Common possession and enjoyment
   • Requirement of a written partnership deed (correct answer)
   • Traditionally, devolution by survivorship

   Explanation. Coparcenary is a creature of law, not agreement — there is no requirement of any written partnership-style deed.

4. Which of these is a source of joint family property?

   • A gift received by one member for personal use only
   • Salary earned through personal employment
   • Property purchased with income from existing joint family property (correct answer)
   • A will bequeathing property to one member individually

   Explanation. Property purchased using income/rents from existing joint family property is itself treated as joint family property, since it is simply the original property's value in another form.

5. In Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa (1961), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of blending:

   • Applies to any family member, including a widow with a limited estate
   • Requires only that the property be used by the family
   • Requires a coparcener's clear, voluntary intention to abandon a separate claim (correct answer)
   • Happens automatically once property is inherited

   Explanation. Blending requires a coparcener (not a female limited owner) to voluntarily, deliberately, and unambiguously intend to merge separate property into the common stock.

6. What is 'separate' (self-acquired) property under Hindu law?

   • Property inherited from the father
   • Property acquired through personal skill or labour, without aid from joint family funds (correct answer)
   • Property acquired using ancestral income
   • Property automatically shared among all coparceners

   Explanation. Separate property is acquired through personal skill, labour, or effort, without any aid from joint family funds — it remains exclusively the acquirer's unless voluntarily blended.

7. Coparcenary property is traditionally classified into apratibandha daya and sapratibandha daya. What does 'apratibandha daya' mean?

   • Obstructed heritage, right only after death
   • Unobstructed heritage, right accrues by birth itself (correct answer)
   • Property that can never be inherited
   • Property acquired through gift only

   Explanation. Apratibandha daya (unobstructed heritage) is property in which a right accrues by birth itself, such as ancestral property inherited from father, grandfather, or great-grandfather.

8. Under which provision did daughters become coparceners by birth, on the same footing as sons, from 2005?

   • Section 4, Hindu Succession Act
   • Section 8, Hindu Succession Act
   • Section 6(1), Hindu Succession Act, as amended in 2005 (correct answer)
   • Section 30, Hindu Succession Act

   Explanation. Section 6(1), as amended in 2005, makes the daughter of a coparcener a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son. The proviso saves any partition or disposition made before 20 December 2004.