Wherein a property was sold to another party which had a re-conveyance deed/clause which said that in the event of resale, the said property would reconvene back to the original party. The argument here is whether said property is actually ancestral property or not. In order to arrive at a decision whether this property is joint family property, Justices Desai and Chinnappa Reddy quoted the following:
“A person inheriting property from his three immediate paternal ancestors holds it, and must hold it, in coparcenary with his sons, sons’ sons and sons’ sons’ sons, but as regards other relations he holds it, and is entitled to hold it, as his absolute property.
“The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. They take an interest in it by birth, whether they are in existence at the time of partition or are born subsequently.”
Thereby when this principle is applied and granted that the reconveyance deed was executed in 1974, the property assumed the character of joint family property and thus it would be ancestral property. Thus, any compromise executed without their knowledge and consent is not binding on them.