Re-union
Chapter Forty-Eight
Syllabus topic 2.8, "Partition and re-union"
Pages 287 to 290 of 477
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.
Re-union
It follows that a minor cannot reunite, and neither his guardian nor his next friend can reunite on his behalf, because a guardian's power does not extend to altering the minor's status. That is a real point and it is examinable: a partition can be made on a minor's behalf, subject to the court's satisfaction that it is for his benefit, but a re-union cannot.
The effect of a re-union
The joint status revives. The parties become members of a joint family again, with all its incidents.
The property thrown back becomes joint family property, and the right by birth attaches to it, so that sons born afterwards take an interest in it.
Survivorship revived, under the classical law, between the reunited members; and to the extent that section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act has replaced survivorship with succession, that consequence is now the statutory one.
The reunion relates only to the parties to it. A separated brother who does not join remains separate.
The property that comes back is only what the parties bring. Property acquired separately after the partition and not thrown in remains separate.
Partition and re-union compared
| Partition | Re-union | |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | Ends the joint status | Restores the joint status |
| Who may do it | Any coparcener, alone | Only by agreement of all the reuniting parties |
| Between whom | Any coparceners | Only father and son, brothers, or uncle and nephew |
| A minor | May be a party, through a next friend, if it is for his benefit | Cannot reunite |
| Unilateral | Yes, a single declaration suffices | No, it is an agreement |
| Presumption | Jointness is presumed until partition is proved | Nothing is presumed; the person alleging it must prove it |
| Formality | None; a declaration suffices, though section 6(5) now requires a registered deed or decree for its own purposes | None, but the intention must be clearly proved |
The row that matters most is the fourth from the bottom. Partition is unilateral and re-union is bilateral. One coparcener can break a family; it takes all of them to put it back together.
A worked example
Three brothers partitioned in 2010 by a registered deed. In 2015 the eldest returned from abroad, and since then all three have lived in one house, eaten from one kitchen and run the family shop together, putting the takings into one account. The eldest dies in 2024. His widow says the three had reunited, so the shop is coparcenary; the others' creditors say there was no re-union.
What is re-union? A restoration of the joint status between persons who were once joint and have separated.
The three conditions. A previous partition; an agreement between parties competent to contract; and a clear intention to restore the joint status.
Re-union
Do the facts prove it? Common residence, a common mess and a joint business do not by themselves show the intention. They are evidence, and the burden of proving a re-union lies on whoever asserts it, because the law does not presume that a proved separation has been undone.
Could all three have reunited? Yes: re-union is confined to a father and his sons, brothers, and a paternal uncle and nephew, and brothers are within it.
Suppose one of them had been seventeen. He could not have reunited: a minor cannot, because he cannot contract.
If a re-union is proved, what follows? The joint family revives, the property comes back into the coparcenary with the right by birth attaching to it, and it binds only those who joined.
Does the eldest brother's son take by birth in the reunited property? Yes, once the re-union is established, because the property has resumed its coparcenary character.
What it does NOT mean
Re-union is not the same as continuing to live together. Common residence, mess or business is evidence and not proof.
It is not available to any relatives. It is confined to a father and sons, brothers, and a paternal uncle and nephew.
It does not require a writing. It requires an agreement and a clear intention.
A minor cannot reunite. He is not competent to contract.
It does not bind those who stayed out. Only the parties to it are affected.
It is not presumed. The burden lies on the person asserting it.
Quick revision
- What it is: restoration of the joint status between persons who were once joint and have separated.
- The three conditions: a previous partition; an agreement between parties competent to contract; and a clear intention to restore the joint status, which common residence, mess or business does not by itself show.
- Who may: a father and his sons, brothers, and a paternal uncle and nephew. A minor cannot.
- The effect: the joint family revives; the property returns to the coparcenary with the right by birth; and it binds only the parties.
- Proof: the burden is on the person asserting the re-union.
Test yourself
1. What is a re-union? The restoration of the joint family status between persons who were once members of a joint family and who separated by partition.
2. What are the requisites of a valid re-union? There must have been a previous partition; there must be an agreement between the parties, who must be competent to contract; and there must be an intention to restore the joint status, which common residence, a common mess or a joint business does not by itself establish.
Re-union
3. Between whom may a re-union take place? Between a father and his sons, between brothers, and between a paternal uncle and his nephew. A minor cannot be a party to one.
4. What is the effect of a re-union? The joint family status revives between the parties, the property that had been divided resumes its character as coparcenary property with the right by birth attaching to it, and the re-union binds only those who were parties to it.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.