However, even such branches can acquire, hold and dispose of family property subject to certain limitations. The nature of property held by such a branch, until partitioned among the members of the branch does not cease to be that of a joint family property of all the coparceners of the branch. Now, since the child conferred with legitimacy under Section 16 is not a coparcener, the branch comprises the father and his children born from the valid marriage. As such, the property, once partitioned from the larger coparcenary, and in the hands of the father, for his own branch, is not the father's separate property, until the partition happens within the branch. It continues to be the coparcenary property in which the children from his valid marriage have joint ownership. Thus, in view of the restriction in Section 16(3), in this property—not being the exclusive property of the father—a child covered by Sections 16(1) and 16(2) is not entitled. [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 at p. 39, para 36 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 119:“36. In Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 52 : AIR 1962 SC 287, it was held that coparcenary is a creature of law and branch of the family was a subordinate corporate body and discussed the proposition thus : (AIR p. 304, para 47)‘47. … Coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law and cannot be created by agreement of parties except in the case of reunion. It is a corporate body or a family unit. The law also recognises a branch of the family as a subordinate corporate body. The said family unit, whether the larger one or the subordinate one, can acquire, hold and dispose of family property subject to the limitations laid down by law. Ordinarily, the manager, or by consent, express or implied, of the members of the family, any other member or members can carry on business or
