Re-union

In one line

Persons who once separated may, by agreement and with the intention of restoring the joint status, become a joint family again, but only if they are related in one of three ways.

What re-union is

Re-union is the restoration of the joint status between persons who were once joint and have since separated.

It is the opposite of partition, and it is exactly as much of a legal act as partition is. A partition ends the joint status; a re-union brings it back, with the right by birth, the community of interest, the karta and everything else that goes with it.

The three conditions

1. There must have been a previous partition

Re-union is possible only between persons who were previously joint and have separated. Persons who were never joint cannot reunite: they can only enter into a partnership or hold property in common, which is a different thing with different consequences.

That is why the question "who can reunite" is a real question. A stranger cannot join a joint family by agreement.

2. The parties must be within the permitted relationships

This is the closed list MU asks for, and it comes from the classical texts. A valid re-union can take place only between:

• a father and his son or sons;
• brothers; or
• paternal uncle and nephew.

Nobody else may reunite. A separated cousin, a maternal relation, a stranger, cannot.

Some texts and some High Courts have taken a wider view, extending re-union to any persons who were parties to the original partition. The safe answer is to state the three relationships as the rule and to note that a wider view exists.

3. There must be an intention to reunite

The agreement must be to restore the joint status, and that intention must be proved. It need not be in writing and need not be registered, but it must be clear.

What is not enough:

• living together again, or
• eating from a common mess, or
• carrying on business together, or
• holding property in common.

Any of those may be evidence of the intention, and none of them is the intention. Separated brothers frequently live in one house and remain separated in law.

The burden of proving a re-union lies on the person who asserts it, and it is a heavy burden, precisely because the ordinary presumption of jointness described in [The Mitakshara Joint Family] no longer helps once a partition has been proved. Once separation is established, the law does not presume that it has been undone.

Who may enter into a re-union

Only a person competent to contract, because re-union rests on agreement.