Upon death of a coparcener his property devolves upon his legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as his self acquired property after notional partition

The Supreme Court in the matter of M. Arumugam vs. M. Ammaniammal (Civil Appeal No. 8642 of 2009) decided on 08.01.2020 held that a HUF property devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, is the individual property of the person who inherits the same and not that of the HUF.

Facts
One Moola Gounder along with his two sons defendant No. 1 and 2 formed a coparcenary which owned the suit property. Upon the death of Moola Gounder who died intestate, 1/3 of the property went to each son and remaining one third which was the share of Moola Gounder in the coparcenary was to be inherited by his wife (defendant no.5), defendant 1 and 2 and three daughters being the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 and 4. A suit was filed by one daughter i.e. the plaintiff claiming that the property falling to the share of Moola Gounder which was to be inherited by his six legal heirs had never been partitioned and therefore, it be partitioned in accordance with law.
In their defence the two sons i.e. defendants nos. 1 and 2 contended that after the death of Moola Gounder, the three daughters and the mother had jointly executed a registered release deed relinquishing their rights in the property in their favour. It was also urged that in the said release deed, the plaintiff who was a minor at that time was represented by her mother, who was her natural guardian, and the mother had executed the release deed on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, only defendant nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the said property. The suit was dismissed by the Trial court on the ground that the release deed was validly executed by the mother of the plaintiff as her natural guardian.
In appeal before the High Court, the judgment was reversed and it was held that the property in the hands of the legal heirs of Moola Gounder, after his death, was Joint Hindu Family property and there was no question of the mother acting as guardian of the minor and executing the release deed on her behalf and therefore, held the release deed to be void ab initio. The court further held that the property remained joint property of all the legal heirs of Moola Gounder and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
In an appeal filed by the original defendant no. 2 before the Apex Court, it was argued by the original Plaintiff that the property in question was not inherited by the legal heirs of Moola Gounder in their individual rights but only as property of a Hindu Undivided Family. It was further argued that in case of HUF property only the Karta i.e., defendant no. 1 could have represented the minor. Therefore, a release deed on behalf of the plaintiff could not have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff and was correctly held to be void ab initio.
On the other hand, the appellant i.e. original defendant no.2 submitted that when the death of Moola Gounder took place, a notional partition is deemed to have taken place immediately before his death wherein two surviving members of the coparcenary i.e., defendant nos. 1 and 2, got 1/3rd share each in the property and the remaining 1/3rd belonging to Moola Gounder was to be inherited in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Issue
Whether the property inherited from Moola Gounder was joint family property

Ratio
The Supreme Court observed that opening portion of Section 6 of the Succession Act indicates that on the death of a male Hindu, his interest in the coparcenary property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with the Act. However, the Proviso makes it clear that if the deceased leaves behind a female heir specified in Class­I of the Schedule, the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property shall devolve either by testamentary or by intestate succession under the Succession Act and not by survivorship.
Therefore, the Apex Court reiterated its earlier view taken in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs. Chander Sen and Ors that the first Explanation to Section 6 makes it absolutely clear that the interest of the Hindu coparcener shall be deemed to be his share in the property which would have been allotted to him if partition had taken place immediately before his death. In the present case, since partition had not actually taken place before the death of Moola Gounder and there were Class­I female heirs, 1/3 share of Moola Gounder was to devolve on the Class­I legal heirs in accordance with Section 8 of the Succession Act therefore the mother could have made a valid release deed for the minor daughter.
In view of the above observations, the Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and judgment of trial court was restored.