Explain the doctrine of representation. What is the effect of the Act on the doctrine?
Ans. Doctrine of Representation.—Doctrine of and a great grandson, whose father and grandfather are both dead, all succeed simultaneously as one heir and form a coparcenary. On a partition of the family property on succession, the sons represent or take the place of their deceased father. The reason why they succeed simultaneously is that the grandson represents his father for a share, and the great grandson represents his father and grandfather. They acquire an interest by birth in the ancestral property in the hands of the ancestor. Now, after the commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughter ofa Mitakshara coparcener is also by birth a coparcener like a son. On the death of a male, therefore, his sons, grandsons and great-grandsons all succeed to his estate simultaneously as coparceners. On a partition among them, they take per stirpes and not per capita. The doctrine does not extend beyond four degrees reckoned from and inclusive of the deceased. Except in the case of sons, grandsons and great-grandsons, (now also in the case of daughter of a coparcener) the right of representation does not apply elsewhere. Illustration A, a male Hindu dies leaving a son B, grandsons C// and C/2 great-grandsons, F/1, F/2, F/3, and great grandson K as shown below :—
C(dLad) E(dead) I D(dead) G(dead) 1 C/1 (!:7/2 11(dead) F(dead) K(dead )
F. I P/2 F/3
In this case, there are four branches of the joint family represented respectively by B, C, D, E or their descendants. On partition among them, the estate ofA will be divided into three equal parts, of which B will take one-third C/I and C/2 will take one-third share of C, their father, equally between them and F/I, F/2, F/3. one-third, share of D, equally between them, each taken I /9th. E’s branch takes nothing as K the only surviving member of the branch, is outside the coparcenary. The joint family will be divided according toper stirpes and not per capita. In Daddo Atmaram Pail v. Raghunath Atniaram Patil, (AIR 1979 Bom.), it was held that succession opens at the time of death of the person whose property is to be succeeded and is governed by the law in force at that time.