Once a Son is Born, Property Purchased with Ancestral Nucleus Becomes Coparcenary:Andhra Pradesh High Court

“The moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener” - Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the partition decree of Item No.1 of the ‘A’ schedule property, ruling that the property was purchased with ancestral nucleus and hence the son had acquired coparcenary rights by birth. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao upheld the findings of the lower courts, reaffirming that alienation of joint family property without consent of coparceners is voidable to the extent of their share. 
“Father Cannot Alienate Son’s Share in Property Acquired from Ancestral Nucleus” 
The dispute centered around a partition suit filed by the wife and son (plaintiffs) of the first defendant, who alleged that the first defendant colluded with others to alienate Item No.1 of the joint family property and was refusing to maintain the plaintiffs. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiffs and the same was upheld by the First Appellate Court. 
Dismissing the second appeal filed by other family members (defendants 2 and 4 to 8), the High Court held: 
“The 1st defendant cannot alienate the share of 2nd plaintiff i.e., Ac.0-07 1/8 cents in Ac.0-14 ¼ cents which is half of Item No.1… At best, the 1st defendant can alienate his own share to the 3rd defendant.” 
 The Court reasoned that since Item No.1 was acquired from the income derived from ancestral lands (Items 2 and 3), it formed part of the coparcenary property. 

“When a Son Is Born, the Characteristic of Coparcenary Property Revives” 
Referring to the landmark decisions in Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 419 and Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand, the Court observed: 
“Once a son is born, it becomes a coparcenary property and he would acquire an interest therein… Even though a person is a sole surviving coparcener, once a son is born, the coparcenary revives.” 
Applying this principle, the Court noted: “As on the date of sale of Ac.0-14 ¼ cents by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant, the 2nd plaintiff (son) was already born and had coparcenary rights.” 
Thus, the alienation made by the father was not binding on the son’s share, and the decree of partition including his share was valid. 
 “Failure to Enter Witness Box Weakens Defendant’s Case” 
 The High Court strongly remarked upon the 1st defendant’s failure to depose, despite being alive and present in the village: 
“Where the party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and does not offer himself for cross-examination, a presumption arises that the case set up by him is not correct.” – quoting Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441. 
Despite claiming that the property was self-acquired, the 1st defendant failed to prove any independent source of income or legal necessity justifying the sale. The Court held that burden shifted onto him, which he failed to discharge. 
“Property Acquired with Agricultural Income Derived from Ancestral Lands” 
 The Court found crucial that the 2nd defendant (brother of 1st defendant) had admitted under cross-examination that: 
 “They belong to an agricultural family and with income from cultivation, they purchased Item No.1.” 
This was decisive proof that the property was acquired with ancestral income, which made it coparcenary in nature, giving the 2nd plaintiff a right by birth. 
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao held that the lower courts had correctly applied the law, and there was no perversity or error of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. The second appeal was dismissed. 
“The 2nd plaintiff is having right over half share in Ac.0-14 ¼ cents… which is half of Item No.1 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property by birth.” 
 
 Date of Decision: April 16, 2025