Joint property does not cease to be joint property when it passes into the hands of a single surviving coparcener. If a child is born to the sole surviving coparcener, the aforementioned assets become joint family assets in his hands and those of the child. The only difference between the right of a trustee of a joint Hindu family over joint family properties where there are two or more coparceners and the right of a single surviving coparcener in respect of joint family properties is that while the former may alienate the coparceners family property only by legal necessity or family benefit, the latter has the right to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property as long as he remains the sole surviving coparcenary and may sell or mortgage the coparcenary property even if no legal necessity or family benefit exists nor can he make a donation of coparcenary assets. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original EssayIf a child is subsequently born or adopted by the sole surviving coparcener or a new coparcener is brought into the family following an adoption made by a widow of a deceased coparcener, a alienation made by the sole surviving coparcener before the birth of a new coparcener or the insertion of a coparcener by adoption into the family, whether by sale, mortgage or gift or adopted after the alienation cannot stand against alienations made before he was begotten or adopted. In the present case the joint family properties which belonged to the joint family consisting of Dharma, the appellant and his brother Miragu continued to retain the character of joint family properties in the hands of Dharmathe appellant as Champabai, the widow of Miragu was still alive and continued to enjoy the right to maintenance on the aforementioned joint family properties. Pandurang, the first respondent in adoption, became the adopted son of Miragu and became coparcener with Dharma, the appellant in the joint family properties. When he became a member of the coparcenary owner of the joint family properties, he had the right to bring an action for the partition and separate possession of his half share of the joint family properties, of course, except those which had been alienated in favor of third parties before the adoption by Dharma, the appellant. Clause (c) under section 12 of the Act would not have been attracted in the present case as there was no "conveyance" of joint family property to Dharma, the appellant who took occurred on the death of Miragu and did not take place any "disinvestment" of property when Pandurang, the first respondent, was adopted. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get Custom Essay The joint family properties continued to remain in the hands of Dharma - the appellant as joint family property and that on his adoption Pandurang - the 1st respondent became a member of the coparcenary entitled to claim half thereof except for the articles which they had been sold by Dharma- the appellant