Partition of Property in Nepal 2026: Civil Code Ansabanda Guide

Property partition in Nepal — known in Nepali as ansabanda or ansha banda — is the legal division of a family's joint or ancestral property among its eligible members. It is one of the most common civil disputes in the country, sitting at the intersection of family relationships and high-value assets: ancestral land, a Kathmandu house, a small business, gold and household property accumulated over a generation. The governing law is the Muluki Civil Code 2074 (2017 AD), specifically the chapter on partition that runs from Section 205 to Section 236, read together with the right to equal lineage property guaranteed by Article 38(1) of the Constitution of Nepal 2072.

Two reforms have changed how Nepali families now divide property. First, the Constitution of 2072 BS (2015 AD) lifted equal lineage rights to fundamental-rights status. Second, the Civil Code 2074 — in force from 17 August 2018 — wrote that constitutional principle into the partition chapter itself: husband, wife, father, mother, son and daughter are all coparceners, every coparcener has an equal partition share, and a daughter's right does not end on marriage. Earlier rules under the Muluki Ain that required married daughters to surrender parental property were abolished.

This guide explains who counts as a coparcener, how the equal-share rule works, when partition can be effected by mutual deed at the Land Revenue Office, when a coparcener must instead bring a partition suit at the District Court, and the consequence of concealing property in a partition under Section 226. It is updated for 2026 (2083 BS).

Alpine Law Associates — trusted by 1,000+ clients across family, corporate, civil, and criminal cases in Nepal.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Our family law team handles ansabanda matters across the spectrum — straightforward sibling partitions where every coparcener agrees on the shares and only the deed and Land Revenue Office registration are needed, as well as contested partition suits at the District Court where one branch of the family disputes who is a coparcener, what is partitionable, and what was concealed. The decisive variables in our experience are not legal — the equal-share rule is settled — but evidentiary: who can prove what is ancestral versus self-acquired, and whether the deed is drafted tightly enough to survive a later challenge.

Who is a coparcener under the Civil Code 2074?

Section 205 of the Civil Code 2074 names the persons who, for the purpose of dividing common property, are deemed to be coparceners of the family: the husband, the wife, the father, the mother, the son and the daughter. The list is gender-neutral on its face. A daughter is a coparcener on the same footing as a son; a wife is a coparcener on the same footing as a husband; a mother is a coparcener on the same footing as a father.

Three points commonly confuse parties who walk into a partition negotiation expecting the older Muluki Ain rules to still apply:

• Marriage does not strip a daughter of her share. Under the older Muluki Ain (2020 BS) and its 2058 BS amendment, married daughters were either excluded from the partition pool or required to return parental property on marriage. The Civil Code 2074, read with Article 38(1) of the Constitution, ended that distinction. A married daughter is a coparcener of her parental family at the date of partition, and her share is not contingent on her marital status. Section 215 of the Civil Code addresses the position of a daughter who has both parental and matrimonial-family property and confirms that her right is not extinguished by marriage.
• The mother and the wife are not "dependents" — they are coparceners. A common assumption is that on partition between a father and his sons, the mother does not get her own share. The Civil Code reverses that assumption: the mother takes a coparcener's share equal to that of each son and daughter. The same equal-share principle applies as between husband and wife.
• The pregnant coparcener. Where a coparcener is pregnant at the time of partition, the partition reserves a share for the anticipated newborn, who is treated as a coparcener for that partition. This prevents the unborn child from being excluded by the timing of the partition.

Coparcener status is the gateway to a partition share. Anyone who is not in the Section 205 list — for example a son-in-law marrying into the family, a domestic worker, a long-term tenant — has no partition right under this chapter, although they may have other civil claims under contract, employment or tenancy law.

What is the equal-share rule under Section 206?

Section 206 of the Civil Code 2074 fixes the share rule in a single sentence: each coparcener is entitled to an equal partition share. The arithmetic is straightforward. A family of a father, a mother, two sons and one daughter has five coparceners; the partitionable property is divided into five equal shares.

What is divided, however, is only the family's joint or ancestral property — not every asset that any family member happens to own. The partition pool excludes self-acquired property of an individual coparcener, gifts received by a particular coparcener from outside the family, and personal-use items that are accepted in practice as the personal property of the holder. Where there is a dispute about whether an asset is ancestral or self-acquired, the court takes evidence — original purchase documents, source of funds, registration history — and the burden of proof is on the party asserting that an asset belongs to one category rather than the other.

The equal-share rule is also why most contested partitions turn not on the share percentage but on the size of the pool. A son who owns a flat in his sole name will argue strenuously that the flat is self-acquired and outside the partition; a sibling will argue equally strenuously that family money funded the down-payment and that the flat is ancestral in substance. The court resolves the categorisation, and the equal-share rule then applies mechanically to the pool that survives.

How is partition effected — deed at the Land Revenue Office or suit at the District Court?

The Civil Code chapter contemplates two routes to partition, used in this order in practice:

1. Mutual partition deed registered at the Land Revenue Office (Malpot Office) of the district where the immovable property is located. This is the route used in the large majority of family partitions where the coparceners are in agreement on the shares and on the items going to each. The deed is drafted in writing, signed by all the coparceners and witnessed, and presented at the Land Revenue Office for registration along with the existing title documents and the citizenship certificates of the coparceners. Once the partition is registered, individual title transfers in the name of each coparcener follow under the standard land-registration regime.
2. Partition suit at the District Court of the district where the property is located, where one or more coparceners do not agree to a partition or to the proposed shares. The plaint identifies the coparceners, lists the partitionable property, asserts the plaintiff's coparcener status, and prays for an equal partition under Section 206. The court takes evidence on the size of the family, the partition pool, any concealment, any self-acquired property to be excluded, and any pregnancy or anticipated coparcener. On a successful suit, the court issues a partition order which is then implemented through the Land Revenue Office for registration of the resulting individual titles.

For the daughters' share specifically and how it interacts with parental and matrimonial property, see our dedicated note on the property rights of daughters in Nepal. Partition that arises out of the dissolution of a marriage rather than out of an ordinary family division is a related but distinct subject — see partition of property after divorce for that route. The succession rules that take over where a coparcener has died before partition are in our note on succession laws in Nepal.

What happens if a coparcener conceals property?

The Civil Code 2074 anticipates the most common form of bad-faith partition behaviour — a coparcener concealing partitionable property so that it never enters the pool to be divided. Section 226 addresses this directly. A coparcener who conceals or hides property that ought to have been partitioned forfeits the right to that specific property; the concealed property is then redistributed among the other coparceners.

This is a powerful incentive against suppression. The risk for the concealer is asymmetric: a successful concealment yields a private gain, but a discovered concealment costs not only the share that would have come on a clean partition but also any independent claim to the concealed item. In practice, when fresh evidence emerges after a partition — a bank account in a sole name funded by family money, a parcel of land transferred shortly before the partition, a vehicle registered in a friend's name — the disadvantaged coparceners file a supplementary application under the partition decree to bring the concealed asset into the pool and apply Section 226's redistribution rule.

The same logic applies to property transferred away on the eve of partition with the intention of defeating a coparcener's share. The court, on evidence, can disregard such transfers in measuring the partition pool.

What about self-acquired property and gifts?

The chapter draws a clear line between joint or ancestral property — which is partitionable — and self-acquired property of an individual coparcener, which is not. Income earned by a coparcener through their own employment, a gift made to a particular coparcener by a non-family donor, an inheritance received from outside the family line, and assets purchased in a coparcener's sole name from independently sourced funds all sit outside the partition pool.

Where the line is genuinely contested, the court takes evidence. Documentary evidence dominates: title registrations, bank statements showing the source of funds, original purchase deeds, and tax returns for the relevant years. The legal test is the source of acquisition; the registered name on the title is significant but not conclusive, because Nepali families often hold ancestral property in a single coparcener's name for administrative convenience.

For the underlying succession framework that determines what is ancestral in the first place, see succession laws in Nepal.

What does a partition deed need to contain?

A partition deed registered at the Land Revenue Office is the cleanest way to close out a partition where coparceners agree. The deed should record, at minimum:

• The identity of every coparcener — full name, present and permanent address, citizenship certificate number, relationship to the family head. Every Section 205 coparcener must appear on the deed; missing a coparcener is the single most common ground for a later challenge.
• A complete schedule of partitionable property — land parcels with kitta numbers, structures, vehicles, bank balances, business interests, gold and household items of significant value. Anything material that is omitted is a candidate for a later concealment claim under Section 226.
• The category of every asset — whether each item is being treated as ancestral and partitioned, or as self-acquired and excluded. The deed records the categorisation so that later disputes can refer back to the agreed position.
• The share allocation — equal under Section 206, with the specific items going to each coparcener clearly listed.
• Witness signatures — at least two witnesses with full names and addresses, in line with the Civil Code's general two-witness rule for documents.
• Place and date of execution on the face of the deed.

Once executed, the deed is presented at the Land Revenue Office of the district where the immovable property lies for registration. The office charges a registration fee under the standard land-registration tariff; confirm the current rate at the receiving office before treating any specific figure as definitive, because the schedule is updated by the Department of Land Management and Archive from time to time. Following registration, individual title transfers are processed in the name of each coparcener.

When does a partition suit at the District Court become necessary?

A partition suit becomes the route when extra-judicial agreement is impossible. The pattern we see at law firm in Nepal is consistent: one coparcener — often a son in possession of the ancestral house — refuses to recognise another coparcener's share, denies that certain assets are ancestral, or simply refuses to sign a partition deed. The aggrieved coparcener files a partition suit at the District Court of the district where the property lies.

The plaint asserts the plaintiff's coparcener status under Section 205, lists the property claimed to be partitionable, prays for an equal partition under Section 206, and where appropriate seeks the redistribution of any property concealed by other coparceners under Section 226. The court issues summons; the defendant coparceners file a written statement; the court takes evidence on coparcener status, the partition pool and any contested categorisations.

The court's partition order is then implemented through the Land Revenue Office for registration of the divided titles. Where an item is indivisible — for example a single small house that cannot be physically split among five coparceners — the court can order sale and division of the proceeds, or assignment of the asset to one coparcener with monetary compensation to the others.

Married daughters who have been excluded from a parental partition often arrive at the court late, after their brothers have effected an extra-judicial partition that left them out. The Civil Code does not extinguish their right by the brothers' private deed; the deed is not binding on a coparcener who did not sign it, and the daughter can sue to bring herself into the partition. The constitutional right under Article 38(1) of equal lineage property reinforces this position. For further reading, see our note on property rights of daughters in Nepal.

What are the most common failure points?

The recurring patterns we see in disputed partitions are largely process failures rather than legal ambiguities:

• A coparcener was missed off the deed. A married daughter living abroad, a step-mother, an estranged son. Any Section 205 coparcener who did not sign can later sue to set the partition aside or to be brought into it.
• The asset list was incomplete. A bank account, a small piece of land in another district, a business interest. Missing assets surface later and produce concealment claims under Section 226.
• The ancestral-versus-self-acquired line was not recorded. Where the deed does not say what was treated as which, every later dispute reopens the categorisation.
• Land Revenue Office registration was skipped. An unregistered family deed sits in a drawer for years; when one coparcener dies and the next generation comes to deal with the property, the unregistered partition is unenforceable against the title and the partition has to be redone.
• A pregnancy was ignored. The unborn child is a coparcener for whom a share must be reserved; partitions executed without that reservation are vulnerable to challenge once the child is born.

Each of these is preventable at the drafting stage. A partition that lists every coparcener, every asset, and every categorisation, and that is registered at the Land Revenue Office, is unusually difficult to disturb later. A partition that takes shortcuts on any of these lines will, given enough time, produce litigation.

Last reviewed: April 2026